A lot more material than your claims of "immateriality" with no justification though.
In fact it's rare to see "material" reasons for using TypeScript. Mostly baseless claims how static typing is "obviously better".
In fact it's rare to see "material" reasons for using TypeScript. Mostly baseless claims how static typing is "obviously better".
But whatever...
The merits of ES6 are also present in typescript. Thus claim 1 is immaterial.
Claim two is rebuked by intellisense and very strongly argued against in a shared-code world.
Claim 3 is presumptive that TypeScript would be the only transpilation, despite nue itself being a transpiler. In addition to all the other bundling modern products use for treeshaking, minification, etc. This is an insignificant and thus immaterial point.
("justification" enough for you?)
Did you even read the FAQ?
I am interpreting the task as "how can we make people who favour strong typing favour not use strong typing?" - something that I just don't think is possible.
I guess the nearest experience you'll get is a zealous API convention that is inuitively consistent/discoverable, but then I would still favour a type system to remove that concern anyway.
2. Code completion can be done also without static typing. Also relying on code completion is a strong smell of a bad codebase. The "very strong arguments" rarely have any empirical basis.
3. Transpilers/compilers are bad and more transpilers are worse. I would prefer a pure browser framework though. A lot of projects would be and are fine without treeshaking, minification etc. And those are practically never needed for development where the compilation step causes most harm.