Why do you want to remove the namespace?
If the namespace is removed, the import * as upperCamelCase from "uppercamelcase"; will not work.

Thank you for your review!

I was not aware that removing the namespace disables the import * as ... syntax. But to be honest, I'm not even sure, whether its worth it to keep this syntax. This syntax won't work in a native module-aware ES6 environment because ES6 module syntax doesn't allow you to export functions directly. So this is purely cosmetic and is even mentioned in the module-function template:

/*~ Note that ES6 modules cannot directly export callable functions.
 *~ This file should be imported using the CommonJS-style:
 *~   import x = require('someLibrary');
 *~
 *~ Refer to the documentation to understand common
 *~ workarounds for this limitation of ES6 modules.
 */

Regarding the compilation, I don't really understand what you mean. I've set up a new project and tested it out, the compilation output looks the same regardless of whether the namespace is present or not:

"use strict";
exports.__esModule = true;
var upperCamelCase = require("uppercamelcase");
console.log(upperCamelCase('-asdas-asd'));

For code:

import upperCamelCase = require("uppercamelcase");
console.log(upperCamelCase("foo"));

compiled with tsconfig.json:

{
  "compilerOptions": {
      "target": "es5",
      "module": "esnext",
      "moduleResolution": "node"
  }
}

the generated js file is:

console.log(upperCamelCase("foo"));

You see, there is no var upperCamelCase = require("uppercamelcase"); in generated js file.

Why I use "module": "esnext" rather than "module": "commonjs"?
Because I use dynamic import(microsoft/TypeScript#14774 (comment)).
Why I use "moduleResolution": "node"?
Because I use angular(https://angular.io/guide/typescript-configuration#tsconfigjson), removing it will generate: Could not resolve module @angular/core.

So, how to make import foo = require() syntax work with angular and dynamic import?

This is very confusing. Setting the module to es2015 leads to errors when using the import upperCamelCase = require('uppercamelcase'); syntax. Which I've expected. What I didn't expect is the output of esnext module system which lacks the require() statement altogether. What I know is that you can safely substitute import upperCamelCase = require('uppercamelcase'); with const upperCamelCase = require('uppercamelcase');.

But this change has the potential to break a lot of setups. I think the best way to proceed is to revert this change.