genny VS starlark

Im not sure about any library in particular.

There were bunch of libraries which helped with code generation to work around generics. I don't think it was specific to Graphql.

https://github.com/cheekybits/genny is one I have seen.

TypeScript is pretty much necessary for a modern JS project if you ask me, so I agree with you here. At the same time, I'd say that if the JS ecosystem offers a solution, that doesn't count as a failure. It's like pointing to the lack of generics in Go and calling that a failure. No, that's a design choice that can be worked around. Same in JS; dynamic typing was a design choice, TypeScript is a solution.

If you want to experiment, I've been meaning to try out this library, which uses code generation (a first-class feature in go), to give generics-like functionality.

If you are into codegen, there are some larger codegen projects or there, like cheekybits/codegen (there are more in the space of trying to circumvent generics in go).

In golang there is no parametric polymorphism (or “type parameters”, or “generics”). So people created workarounds, for example, gengen (similar solutions genny, generic, gen):

The implementations and users page mentioned above:

https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark/blob/master/users.md

Starlark: Starlark is a language for describing build transformations, inspired by Python, but with features that make it suitable for embedding in software like Bazel. It can be used for configuration generation due to its capability for deterministic evaluation and expressing complex build transformations.

In the design of Starlark (https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark), I often had to push back against new feature requests to keep the language simple. I explicitly listed simplicity as a design goal.i

Of course, the scope of the language is not the same as general purpose languages, but there's always pressure from the users to add more things. I also think many people underestimate the cost of adding new features: it's not just about adding the code in every compiler/interpreter, specifying every edge-case in a spec, updating all the tooling for the language and writing tutorials; it's also a cost on everyone who will have to read any of the code.

one of the benefits of starlark (unlike python): "Starlark is suitable for use in highly parallel applications. An application may invoke the Starlark interpreter concurrently from many threads, without the possibility of a data race, because shared data structures become immutable due to freezing." from https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark/blob/master/spec.md - it's not python, you can't do recursion (!) and it's more limited (you can't read a file in bazel, and parse it, you have to make this operation into the graph somehow)

You can do the same in Bazel which uses Starlark for its BUILD files. Starlark is a dialect of Python so it makes it super easy to work with.

Make sense. We do not use Python actually, the build language is starlark, which is the config lang used by bazel. https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark

Have you seen Starlark? It's not too far from that, but safer in a number of ways: https://github.com/bazelbuild/starlark