All other operating systems implementations have GUI, and Linux doesn't.
Seriously though: modern JS ecosystem is not a "language" or a "framework". It's a kernel. You can choose your own language, whether it's Typescript, Coffescript, Purescript, Clojurescript, Reason or one of it's sublings, Elm, or pure JS. Of course, like with Linux, this can be a good or a bad thing for different users and circumstances: personally, I like Linux, but I don't want to handle all of this complexity on my own desktop.
And just like with Linux, you have to choose your own implementations for everything: testing library, strings, dates, templating library, state management, web server, etc.
If you're comparing the barebones Node and vanilla JS to other languages and frameworks, you're not making a valid comparison. You can't pretend that something is inferior just because it's modular.
> You "two other", right? I've used many that didn't have a GUI.
Good point, however, I don't think it makes the analogy invalid. You can replace "GUI" with "init system" or any other thing that separates OS kernel from a full-fledged OS.
> That's not how it's pitched.
There's truth in it. However, I think that the problem here is that we might have different expectations of what a "language" is. For some, it should be a complete package with all libraries and tools built-in — like go or Python. Racket even comes with it's own standard IDE. For other languages, like C, not even standard library is something expected, it's very basic and it's implementations are platform-specific.
Yes, if you take the basic Node, it will not have Typescript included. And for a developer that comes from a different background modifying your "language/framework" is something so weird and out of the ordinary that you don't really do that often. So you might inclined to judge Node ecosystem by your habits, but that's a mistake.
Just as with leftpad, developers from other ecosystems were in shock to find out how many small dependencies does a typical Node project have — because including a dependency is an expensive thing in their experience! But with Node, it's not. I can build and run a typical Node project with hundreds dependencies ~10 minutes after I clone a repo, but it takes me a few hours to configure the right version of Python, requirements and native C/C++ libraries for any significantly complex Python project that has a lot less.
So, instead of comparing the "type checking" out of the box, compare two reasonably sized projects after a year of active development by 5-10 person teams. And from my personal experience, a modern Typescript project would eliminate a lot more failure conditions at compile time than any other mainstream language.
Seriously though: modern JS ecosystem is not a "language" or a "framework". It's a kernel. You can choose your own language, whether it's Typescript, Coffescript, Purescript, Clojurescript, Reason or one of it's sublings, Elm, or pure JS. Of course, like with Linux, this can be a good or a bad thing for different users and circumstances: personally, I like Linux, but I don't want to handle all of this complexity on my own desktop.
And just like with Linux, you have to choose your own implementations for everything: testing library, strings, dates, templating library, state management, web server, etc.
If you're comparing the barebones Node and vanilla JS to other languages and frameworks, you're not making a valid comparison. You can't pretend that something is inferior just because it's modular.