made slight edit here to try to clarify that it's about theruntimetypeof operator in TS vs the type-timetypeof operator, which also exists.

I'll think about this a bit. Two things I wanna pay attention to

1. number is the specific example in this section, but it's supposed to make a point about the primitives in general, notjust numbers
2. If we givetoo much justification, it can seem like this is something controversial that we're just weirdly strongly opinionated about, rather than something that's not even slightly in dispute by anyone. 😆

That's true. Well it's up to your decision. I certainly want to keep this phrasing though:

Primitives work with== and=== equality checks and have more commonly relied-on behavior around truthiness/falsiness, while two objects that wrap the same primitive values do not compare equal, andall wrapper objects are truthy regardless of the wrapped value.

Adapted this a bit to make space for examples, each using a different primitive type. Let me know what you think!

While we're here 😄 I'm re-reading this and finding it hard to parse... maybe:

I think this loses the nuance that we tried hard to keep in the original docs. JavaScript only has eight types:number,object,string,symbol,boolean,bigint,undefined,null.Boolean,Number, etc. are subtypes ofobject. It's only in TypeScript-land where they are sort of parallel and can be compared to each other.

I actually agree. I would like to go with something more similar to the original wording as well.

Neither here nor there, but

Boolean,Number, etc. are subtypes ofobject.

TIL that

leto:object=false;// <-- TS error// BUTletb:Boolean=false;o=b;// no error lol

The wrapper types are so bad lol

Yep—everything that doesn't claim to be a primitive is implicitlyobject, including{}.object does not actually mean "non-primitive"; it just means "is not definitely primitive".