Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that's kinda the point; you get all that, unless you don't run the build-step/in-editor dev process. And the only reason to make that step optional, is to not run it, which is a worse experience. So I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing, it's just that I don't see the point. And given that there's the major downside of having to go through the standards process, both now and in the future, which will likel…
> And the only reason to make that step optional, is to not run it, which is a worse experience. Yeah, but it's an optional "worse" experience. IOW, for those people who think it's a better experience (because there is no build step), they can opt into it. For those who think it's a worse experience, they can continue using a build-step. Nothing changes for those who want a build-step. (I agree about the standards pr…
I feel like the way to make both of us happy is to just strip type annotations, rather than doing full type checking in the browser. Which, luckily, is already making its way through the standards track: https://tc39.es/proposal-type-annotations/
> If the browser support TS natively, the compilation target would not be JS (which is what makes the resulting code slow), but either WASM, or naive code.
I was not talking about compiling it to JS; I seem to recall that native support wouldn't necessarily result in big performance improvements. (Consider that JS is also not being compiled to JS.)