> The transpiled JavaScript closely resembles the source TS, making debugging easier (source maps allieviete this to a certain extent). High-level languages lo

> The transpiled JavaScript closely resembles the source TS, making debugging easier (source maps allieviete this to a certain extent). High-level languages look nothing like machine code, but we still compile them to it. > Transpiling from a whole different language means you have to port the standard runtime That's true, but it's not a reason not to use a good language instead of a horrific one. > The more different the two languages are, the more likely you'll run into surprising situations where feature X in language Y cannot be implemented in its original form in JavaScript I contend that any feature of a Turing-complete language can be implemented in JavaScript. > As someone else mentioned, TS is almost a superset of JS, which means mixing in JS code into TS code is much easier. 'I still get to use JavaScript' doesn't sound very appealing. But, of course, many high-level languages offer an escape to assembler: a high-level language compiling to JavaScript can offer an escape to JavaScript. > What is a real language anyway? Haskell, CaML, Lisp, Python, Go — not JavaScript, though, which is an embarrassment to our profession.