Yeah, I agree it was lazy of me define "worse is better" the way I did, I think they're 2 separate thoughts, but I still think TypeScript uses the "worse is bet

Yeah, I agree it was lazy of me define "worse is better" the way I did, I think they're 2 separate thoughts, but I still think TypeScript uses the "worse is better" approach to design, in the sense that C used it. My usage of "worse is better" means "worse is more marketable, and easier to implement", as opposed to actually being better when adopted. The original use of "worse is better" was not advocating for it as a design style in the general case, but commenting on the survival and adoption characteristics of systems designed in this style, as well as that it's often a good approach in the beginning of a project. TypeScript makes a simple promise, add types to your existing code base using an easy to understand structural type system, and it works on top of JS, just as C was designed as simple layer on top of Assembler. If C ("Worse is Better") is now being disrupted by Rust ("The Right Thing"), I think we'll see a similar player for JS / TypeScript. If you're in a position where you can decide what stack a large swath of developers are going to use, you should perhaps keep an eye open to JS / TypeScript alternatives with growing ecosystems. Your choice could turn into a competitive advantage, even if it means a smaller community in the beginning.