> Instead of reimplementing TypeScript as closely as possible at the expense of performance, AssemblyScript tries to support its features as closely as reasonab

> Instead of reimplementing TypeScript as closely as possible at the expense of performance, AssemblyScript tries to support its features as closely as reasonable while not supporting certain dynamic constructs intentionally: This sentences, and the examples given with it, show that AssemblyScript is not technically a subset of TypeScript. There are 'features' in the former that aren't available in the latter. For example, explicitly converting the results of binary boolean operators to boolean is something that does not exist in typescript. It's a subtle but important distinction, although I may be splitting hairs.