Arguably, depending on what you're building, the pain of integrating an entirely different language into your stack is greater than the pain of simply using something like Ramda (or, better yet, just writing simple, imperative code). YMMV of course—if the problems you're solving lend themselves naturally to purely functional code, maybe something like Rescript or PureScript may be worth it, but for most projects, I'd guess probably not.
Idiomatic describes the common practices of the ecosystem, without the features (specifically currying, since it's the only one mentioned). How does a codebase that doesn't use these features become unidiomatic?
For instance, the audience that sees fp-ts as a necessary, useful library to code in a manner they find most appropriate will find JavaScript/TypeScript ergonomics verbose, hard to read, and require someone with functional programming experience (see the verbosity according to their docs of TypeScript+fp-ts vs. PureScript: https://gcanti.github.io/fp-ts/guides/purescript.html). That audience would be better suited doing compiled option such as the aforementioned PureScript, or js_of_ocaml, ReScript, derw, Idris, GHC.js/whatever the new GHC compiler JS output is, or similar option. These languages will have the idioms of fp-ts without the heavy reliance on singularly library most of the TypeScript community doesn’t understand that bloats their code bases without requiring the safety (someone can just call .value on a Maybe/Option breaking the safety). (This is not a knock against fp-ts which is a marvel in & of itself, but the audience doesn’t line up with the idioms of the average TypeScript project).