> I’ll make a veery small exception for a minimalist type system, or in other words, only 10% of typescript. I’ll take just the ‘Type’ and that’s all. All we s

> I’ll make a veery small exception for a minimalist type system, or in other words, only 10% of typescript. I’ll take just the ‘Type’ and that’s all. All we should have are primitive types like object, number, string, boolean, undefined. Anything else should just define a shape/interface of an object, but no "type" that can be inherited. In that case, as you say, 90% of Typescript could go away and be relatively straight forward. > JS just really needed Classes as syntactic sugar for the odd way we replicated it with prototypes. Depends on if that's actually odd. In my opinion, we should avoid prototypes most of the time, so it's strange in retrospect that we layered a cumbersome OO construct on top of it without any of the benefits other languages have like being able to change the constructor/initializer method after class construction. > We really didn’t need shit else. Yep. Sadly the older I'll get the more crystalized that realization will become and the more frustrated I'll be at a world that thinks more is better.