> This is a legitimately genuine question: if you're treating TypeScript as just type annotations on an otherwise regular-old-JavaScript codebase, then why are

> This is a legitimately genuine question: if you're treating TypeScript as just type annotations on an otherwise regular-old-JavaScript codebase, then why are you using TypeScript rather than just JavaScript with JSDoc comments? TypeScript is way easier to write, and allows to anotate more stuff. We do have some JS that will stays as JS that's anotated with JSDoc, and it's a worse experience than TS. > Also, I can't quite tell. Are you defending TypeScript's brokenness by suggesting we just don't use all of its advertised features? I'm defending the usefulness of the tool, but not its marketing. I think the approach of trying to cover every single usage of JS is not the best, and leads to some complex features and weird edge cases like the ones you mentionned. But for typing plain JS, it works very well. I guess we get a lot of value from TS because static typing is easy when your code wasn't that dynamic in the first place. > If TypeScript advertises a feature, shouldn't that feature, like, actually work? Fair point. I honestly don't know what a codebase that doesn't really benefits from TS looks like, but from your description I can see that their claims are a bit too much. I consider TS as part of a campaign from Microsoft trying to regain mindshare and/or control of developers, and thus always took their claims with a grain of salt.