There are two kinds of discipline; one scales, and the other doesn't. Consider this line from the article: > you don’t need TypeScript to write good React Nat

There are two kinds of discipline; one scales, and the other doesn't. Consider this line from the article: > you don’t need TypeScript to write good React Native code, just Javascript and some discipline The author provides this as an example of the "disciplinarian" approach, which the author says "doesn't scale." It's an interesting example, because learning a new way to code requires discipline. IME, the main obstacle to TypeScript is that you have to have the discipline to learn TypeScript and endure the compile errors it generates. I think you could rewrite the author's example the opposite way: "You don't need to write careful JavaScript, you just need enough discipline to learn and use TypeScript" But this is a different kind of discipline; it's the discipline to seek out a "better" (or at least more scalable) way of doing things. You typically hear static-typing fanatics calling dynamically typed languages "undisciplined." TypeScript is an order of magnitude less popular than pure JavaScript, even considering just new code on Github. TypeScript may be better, but it isn't taking over the world--not yet, at least--because it requires (enforces!) more discipline to get started.