Their typescript compiler may not be targeting the correct ecmascript version so the typescript generated could be using polyfills instead of native features.
maybe they included compilation? it would make sense as that's a real world use of cpu/memory/energy.
But it certainly looks like they didn't include compilation time for all of the compiled-to-machine-code languages. C has the reference value of '1'.
I think they included compile time if the code is JITed at startup.
What about the energy fixing bugs in JS that Typscript found at compile time?
Still doesn't make sense. Build one time, run many times.
If I'd hazard a guess before reading the article, it's because of the transpilation phase to regular Javascript. That doesn't come for free.