> Are you suggesting that TS team is so incompetent or legacy burdened that their codebase is impossible to extend. I'm not suggesting at all that they're inco

> Are you suggesting that TS team is so incompetent or legacy burdened that their codebase is impossible to extend. I'm not suggesting at all that they're incompetent, but you seem to be... Typescript's goal was not extensibility in the way it would be needed for Rome to use it as its base. There is nothing wrong with that. Also, it's not "incompetence" to write a codebase that is hard to extend or modify to do something in a completely different way. It's just a difference of priorities. Of course it would be better to only have easily-modifiable codebases in the world, but this is not possible. Teams might have other conflicting goals. Don't fool yourself into thinking that a good codebase has every single positive attribute in the world just because it's a good codebase, or because its authors are good coders. Webpack was harder to modify than creating Rollup from scratch, GCC was harder to modify than it was to create LLVM from scratch, Linux is immeasurably harder to modify than Minix if you want it to do things it was not . But it doesn't mean that those codebases are worse or better. -- > What use case of TS would you exclude to arrive at simpler code base ? Why would I want to exclude any use case from Typescript? I actually mentioned Rome's raison d'être is to have more things than other transpilers. It's a matter of architecture and early choices, of how the parser/ast/pretty-printer were implemented. Not really a matter of features we can remove.