* The rules in place for any types were created in good faith but small exceptions should be allowed for externally defined structures you don’t own. It’s nice when type libraries exist on definitely typed but there is not a dined type set for everything.
* I love TypeScript but loathe OOP. When I encounter developers utterly dependent upon OOP I stereotype them as CS students who are largely incapable of self learning and incapable of forming original data structures. That sounds mean, but it’s usually correct. I have yet to encounter a JS developer hopelessly dependent upon OOP that can walk the DOM or asynchronously walk the file system. Earlier in my career this stereotype was reserved for many Java developers but this is no longer the case.
What are you talking about?
Sure OOP has its downsides, but
JS classes are just functions used to build custom data types. You could just as easily create the same structures with arrow functions that return objects.
Some languages paradigms encourage OOP more than others. TypeScript is one of them, even if you choose to ignore it, as most React devs seem to.
There is a tendency among aging millennials to liken every news event to Harry Potter, which has made the response "read another book" popular. I think some web devs need to be told "learn another language." Not everything should be hammered into a JS shaped hole.
The relationship between the type system and running code isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing. It's not reasonable to port a 100k+ LoC project to another language.
I can't give you an exact figure, but at my previous position we gradually migrated a codebase that was 10s of ks worth of JS/TS over to Purescript, and everybody's life was better off for it.
As for the font, it's Courier New. I wanted to use one of the browser's built-in fonts for speed. if you have trouble reading it, I'd like to know which of the built-in fonts you recommend. I may eventually make it toggleable by the user.