[roebk]

They are choosing TypeScript, they're opting into type checking with JSDoc and tsc. For a brand new code base, you could argue that it would make sense to jump in and write TypeScript, but JSDoc and tsc will get them most of the benefits. It's almost a non-issue.

[frou_dh]

It's illustrative of how crazed some TypeScript advocates have become, that any deviance whatsoever causes them to be shocked and appalled, as some have expressed in this comments section.

People, if you must be religious about a programming language, at least find a more enthralling god than a JS superset!

[runarberg]

From the article:

> ESM with type checking. I don't want to rewrite in TypeScript, because I believe the core of ESLint should be vanilla JS, but I do think rewriting from scratch allows us to write in ESM and also use tsc with JSDoc comments to type check the project. This includes publishing type definitions in the packages.

This is such a heated debate, and so many posts here are just simply wrong about the capabilities of using TypeScript as a type checkers.

A statically typed code base is a primary goal of the author, they simply pick to do it using JavaScript and annotating the types in JSDoc comments, using TypeScript only as the static type checker, which is an available—and well supported—option in TypeScript.

> Choosing to use JS without TS at this point has become a dogmatic statement of purism that, while beautiful in a sense, is so unpragmatic as to appear a little foolish.

You’re parent is simply just wrong here, and it is quite frustrating how many posts here simply take up this talking point and repeat it.