Does not seem like this:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Personally, I consider all of Go to be a mistake.
You also consider Scala and OCaml to be mistakes? Because all of what I've mentioned also works in a very similar way in Scala.
> an appeal to authority
No, I didn't appeal to authority. It's the opposite - it's statistics. Multiple experienced language designers don't add features later for nothing. For a similar process, see eg. closures getting added to every mainstream language.
> complete, exhaustive runtime schema
Again, I wasn't talking about runtime schemas, but types. I only mentioned runtime as a counterpoint to the false statement that TypeScript doesn't enforce this. Only reducing this to runtime checking is a fallacy, again.
> A little hypocritical, no?
No, they aren't comparable since I wasn't using the examples as supports for an argument of whether X is better than Y. Strawmen involve argumentation.
> read my comment... examples... that were already in my comment
I read it in detail, the problem is you didn't really read my comment in detail, which illustrated both the subtyping and structural typing aspects (albeit trivially, yes), which yours didn't.
> You're also fairly clearly using string literals to type input without properly parsing it
Okay then, the arrogance of this is pretty astounding... You seem to know what I'm doing better than I am!
To be clear, I'm not doing any of that. And I've written Haskell way before I wrote any TypeScript.