In my opinion, it's terribly disingenuous for them to argue in favor of this approach and use TypeScript as an example without acknowledging that a great deal of making TypeScript practically useful involved investment into adoption and support, and the open nature of it. C-rusted will never expand beyond a niche of some industries if not opened in some form, and likely, if it's actually a good idea another tool will eventually eclipse it.
That's a shame, as it seems like a pretty decent idea, even if I feel like the paper is written a bit like an advertisement (it feels a fair bit biased: it's hard to argue that you can't adopt Rust incrementally at all even if it doesn't allow for gradual adoption in the same manner as C-rusted or TypeScript. Also, it definitely doesn't demonstrate a similar competency towards being able to express things safely as Rust does.)
That's a shame, as it seems like a pretty decent idea, even if I feel like the paper is written a bit like an advertisement (it feels a fair bit biased: it's hard to argue that you can't adopt Rust incrementally at all even if it doesn't allow for gradual adoption in the same manner as C-rusted or TypeScript. Also, it definitely doesn't demonstrate a similar competency towards being able to express things safely as Rust does.)