That just Sounds like an even stronger argument to add types to the language.

Yeah.

The hard part is that types are very hard/complex, with many tradeoffs.

A standard with strong backwards compat and is interpreted consistently is hard (see Python).

Could be.

That is a ”no true Scotsman” argument.

How so? GP complained about JS lack of types. I pointed out that most JS actually benefits from types, given it's typically authored in TS. No moving goalposts, no "true Scotsman" arg.

Paraphrasing:

>> JS has progressed but it still lacks types, it seems crazy to do serious programming work in a language that doesn’t have such basic things

> Serious programming work in JS is done in TypeScript

My point was agreeing with the GP's underlying point that types matter. Yes it'd be crazy to do serious programming work in JS without types -- that's why ~nobody does that. It's why TypeScript exists and ~everybody doing serious work on JS projects uses it. Their argument was almost a strawman, it refers to a hypothetical situation that doesn't pertain. Serious JS programmers use TS.

And are vanilla 0-dep 0-build projects just gimmicks and toys?