Hegel VS Sanctuary

unfortunately, the project is on pause for the time being [1]

[1]: https://github.com/JSMonk/hegel/issues/355#issuecomment-1075...

Thank you. Just checked out the Bagel post (https://www.brandons.me/blog/the-bagel-language) and it looks really cool. Identifying pure functions (whether that is by syntax annotation or from synthesis) is a really good idea, gives me some ideas for doing function inlining in Ezno. I like the "Misc niceties" section, a few of those may of may not be on Ezno's todo list :)

The automatic / inferred generic restrictions is quite cool. https://hegel.js.org/ got there before me! Basic restriction modification is quite simple e.g. `(x) => Math.sin(x)`, x wants to be a number so can add that restriction. It gets more difficult with higher poly types. `(someObj) => Math.sin(someObj.prop1.prop2)` requires modifying not just `someObj` but a property on a property on it. And `(x, y) => printString(x + y)` requires doing even more complex things. But its definitely possible!

Can TypeScript be improved in this respect? Or, in broader terms, can a superset of JavaScript support a sound type system without becoming overly complicated?

An alternative to TypeScript can be Flow, a library maintained by Facebook. Flow, similarly to TypeScript, is not a sound type system. "Flow tries to be as sound and complete as possible. But because JavaScript was not designed around a type system, Flow sometimes has to make a tradeoff". Another alternative is Hegel, a type system that "attempts" to be sound. It is unclear to me if the attempt succeeded or not but it is worth checking.

Check out Hegel[0], it uses Flow syntax, it's compatible w/ .d.ts type definitions and has a smarter type inference model than both TS and Flow IMHO.

[0] https://hegel.js.org/

SEEKING WORK • Berlin, Germany • Remote or on-site • Software developer

I'm a software developer with 13 years of experience. I love leveraging software to save people time. I have a background in (visual) design and consider design to be crucial to the development of all software (even software with no visible interface).

I have deep knowledge of JavaScript. I have also worked professionally with TypeScript, Python, and Haskell. I enjoy working with HTML and CSS. I know React, and I'm looking for an opportunity to learn htmx.

I have created Sanctuary (https://sanctuary.js.org/) and several other libraries. :)

https://davidchambers.me/cv/

Location: Berlin, Germany

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Possibly

Technologies: JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Haskell, Clojure, Bash, SQL, HTML, CSS, React, htmx, functional programming

Résumé/CV: https://davidchambers.me/cv/

Email: [email protected]

Author of Sanctuary (https://sanctuary.js.org/) and several other libraries. I love writing parsers and interpreters. I enjoy writing shell scripts more than is healthy (ShellCheck is amazing). I love hyperlinks and discovering web standards.

I wonder if this will be something that functional libraries like Ramda [1] or Sanctuary [2] will be able to benefit from.

One of the reasons these libraries don't work so well with TS is that it doesn't have ML-style whole program inference and hence doesn't work so well with patterns like currying. Hegel seems more capable in that regard.

[1] https://ramdajs.com/

[2] https://github.com/sanctuary-js/sanctuary

Fortunately, as it has been shown in this article, it’s definitely possible to use functional programming with plain JavaScript. However, if you really want to dive deeper into this paradigm while using JavaScript, you’ll probably want to use some already existing functional libraries such as Sanctuary, Fluture, Ramda and others.

Hey everyone, I put together a [Cheat Sheet](https://github.com/identinet/sanctuary-cheat-sheet) for [Sanctuary](https://sanctuary.js.org/) that I hope is helpful to you.