As a long term observer: definitely not a goal. But you have to be clear here: JavaScript and C# both are OO languages, both are having origins stories in Java/C++, both are facing the same niche (system development), same challenges (processor counts, ...) and so on. And then, you put teams on it which look left and right when they face a problem and then you wonder that they reuse what they like?

C# language team is also really good. They did not do a lot of mistakes in the 25+ years. They are a very valid source of OO and OO-hybrid concepts. It is not only TS/JS but also Java and C++ who often look to C#.

The story was not to transform C# code to JS but to use C# to write the code in the first place and transpile it. Not for the sake of having .NET usage but for the sake of having a good IDE.

▲

m132 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> They did not do a lot of mistakes in the 25+ years

If my memory serves, .NET and WinFS were the two major forces that sunk Longhorn, and both have been given their walking papers after the reset [1].

.NET and C# have grown to be mature and well-engineered projects, but the road there was certainly not without bumps. It's just that a lot of the bad parts haven't spilled outside of Microsoft, thankfully.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2005/05/26/dotnet_longhorn/

	▲	Sammi 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Are we mixing the language and the runtime here? C# the language seems weirdly free of weirdness and footguns.
	▲	moron4hire 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		.NET was already a going concern before Longhorn even started. What sank Longhorn was the fact that writing an OS from scratch is hard and maintaining compatibility with existing OSes in the process is even harder, especially when you're adopting a completely new architecture. Longhorn would have been a microkernel running 100% on the .NET runtime, mainline Windows is a monolithic kernel written in C++. I don't know how it would have ever worked, whether .NET was "perfect" or not.