arktype VS proposal-type-annotations

I primarily rely on that approach to benchmark ArkType's types.

I was one of the most outspoken supporters of this initiative until I started working on ArkType. That may sound oddly self-serving, and it would be naive to claim objectivity after having invested so much into my own solution to this problem. However, I don't think that's the primary reason I changed my mind.

Since it's not explicitly listed there, I feel I should shout out David Blass and his incredibly cool ArkType project: https://github.com/arktypeio/arktype

He sometimes (used to?) streams himself working on twitch and it's a really comfy place to hang out: https://www.twitch.tv/arktypeio

ArkType is a runtime validation library that can infer TypeScript definitions one-to-one and reuse them as highly-optimized validators for your data.

Could also try ArkType if you haven't seen it.

How would you say the functional chaining style overall compares to a parsed syntax like ArkType?

I'm working on a library called ArkType maybe of interest to you.

If you're interested in the possibilities of this kind of stuff in TypeScript, you should check out ArkType.

Have you tried ArkType?

That proposal is not fully compatible with Typescript: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations?tab=readme...

They held a meeting a few months ago so it's alive but probably still years away.

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations/issues/184

I particularly like this thread in the TC39 types proposal. TypeScript IS a development trojan horse and locks you into the Microsoft Way of being a JS developer.

Edit: There is a proposal to extend JavaScript with type annotations, which would allow ("a reasonably large subset") of TypeScript to run directly in the browser. Yay!

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

More importantly, TypeScript typically commits to build things into itself when the proposal in JavaScript reaches Stage 3. The pattern matching proposal in JavaScript is Stage 1, but depends on many other proposals as well that may or may not need to be at Stage 3 as well for it to work. This particular proposal is interested on pattern matching on JavaScript Objects and other primitives, just like Python does with it’s native primitives. These are also dynamic types which helps in some areas, but makes it harder than others. Additionally, the JavaScript type annotations proposal needs to possibly account for this. So it’s going to be awhile. Like many years.

this is exactly what I want from the _Types as Comments_ proposal[0] as I think it's the only way that types can feasibly become part of the language. It's hard to imagine how all of the concepts TS introduces via special syntax can be covered otherwise.

[0] https://tc39.es/proposal-type-annotations

Crossing my fingers that the proposal for allowing (browser-ignored) type annotations in javascript progresses: https://tc39.es/proposal-type-annotations/

Between that, HTTP2/3 and ES modules many of the downsides for building apps with no compile step are almost completely mitigated.

JSDoc can get you pretty far, but it can be clumsy sometimes. There’s a [TC39 proposal](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations) to allow types to live in JS code and be treated as comments (similar with Python types today)