I don’t know that I’d rush to call Typescript awesome. It’s only awesome sitting next to JavaScript. Compared to say another modern language (I.e Dart or Kotlin) which has proper typing, compilation and didn’t have to take on all the baggage of that level of JS interop it’s actually quite a shit language.

Just using the idea of mixins as a quick example.

Here is how they look in Dart: https://dart.dev/language/mixins

And here’s how they look in Typescript: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/mixins.html

No, they are not. There was a time when Microsoft tried to sneak C# through Mono into the Gnome desktop under the "promise" that they would not enforce legal action. Fortunately, many smelled the BS from miles away, except for some misguided Gnome developers. Why should Rust not also be a vehicle for Microsoft's new incursion into, e.g., the Linux kernel, where some are already poking Rust?

I am not all that familiar with the Rust Foundation; but I do not trust corporate-owned languages in general, let alone ones where Microsoft seeks to have an influence.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/07/micro...

When .NET (that is, what became CoreCLR runtime flavour) was open-sourced, it was done in such a way as not to cause issues for existing Mono, Xamarin and Unity code, and allow cleanly merging the first two into overarching .NET ecosystem.

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/LICENSE.TXT

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/PATENTS.TXT

Given that MSFT never sued anyone for .NET or .NET-related matters, so far their reputation is clean in that area, unlike certain Java-related company.

(after reading the thread, I'd like to suggest taking a seaside vacation)

This is not a refutation of my statement. The episode I mentioned came years before the opening of .NET core, and the threat of a lawsuit was very much real at the time. Their track record is generally still one that does not promote trust.