[quaunaut]

This isn't typical application code, but either proof-of-concept or library code. What you'd instead get is the type error, which in turn would explain itself well enough- that it expected a certain type, and got a different type.

The reason you wouldn't want a cross-compiler for that other language is that there are true semantic differences between languages, and many languages simply cannot fully support the JS runtime- and if your primary application is still in Typescript, trying to cross-compile for a single feature is downright ridiculous.

> The invention, support and defense of Typescript baffles me. It feels like an intensely wasteful work-around for poorly written interpreter error messages concocted by comp-sci grads who think compiled languages are superior to interpreted ones in all situations and they want to bring this wisdom to developers of loosely typed languages.

I sincerely don't think statically typed languages are superior, but I'd argue a large part of the increase in quality over the last few years of the ecosystem is due in large part to Typescript.

Is it going to fix all, or even a majority of the issues? Probably not. But if it can improve upon the situation I don't see why we'd make perfect the enemy of good.