It could depend on the alternative proposed. Adding types to dynamic languages might actually exhibit this behavior, of inevitably leading to really, really com

It could depend on the alternative proposed. Adding types to dynamic languages might actually exhibit this behavior, of inevitably leading to really, really complex type definitions which just confuse things tremendously. In your case, your alternative is back to untyped, unsafe JavaScript. Maybe that's not so much better. Another alternative would be to move to a language designed with types in mind from the get go, say OCaml (with ReScript) or Java (with JSweet), or others. Bottom line, I think that claim is still true: "Forcing types on a dynamic language like this seems to inevitably lead to really, really complex type definitions which just confuse things tremendously" But if that is a good or bad trade off for you to make, I think that's very contextual, it depends. Maybe that's okay for someone, and they'll use TypeScript. Maybe that's not okay, and they'll go back to JavaScript. Maybe they'll instead explore a ground up typed lang like Java.