io-ts VS Hegel

Qué rico. Si tenés chance meté un proceso de code review fuerte, y para el tema de I/O probá a usar https://github.com/Effect-TS/schema ó https://github.com/gcanti/io-ts que les da una solución obvia al tema de "tipos para lo que devuelva el backend", aunque es en realidad mucho más capaz que eso.

My fave is still io-ts (https://github.com/gcanti/io-ts/blob/master/docs/index.md) as I find it more flexible than zod at the ingress. The author is also working on the Effect ecosystem which also looks interesting.

I’ve been using io-ts for this and been very happy with it. [1] It’s similar to Swift’s Coding protocol in case you’re familiar.

[1] https://gcanti.github.io/io-ts/

Yeah, there are a few new concepts and it's not the easiest to pick up right away. The best introduction is here on the main documentation page.

We use https://github.com/gcanti/io-ts/blob/master/Decoder.md which has a very similar interface. It can even be used to mutate the data using https://github.com/gcanti/io-ts/blob/master/Decoder.md#the-parse-combinator.

A good way to significantly improve the reliability of your app is via improving type-safety by moving away from using any to unknown. One relevant example could be when you type your backend responses and when stringifying JSON to using unknown combined with some sort of runtime type checking. It can be done either by using built-in functionality like type guards or using an external library like io-ts, zod or yup.

Usage of TypeBox is similar with io-ts and zod, but it is much powerful and faster than them. Also, TypeBox can generate JSON schema very easily. Therefore, if you're looking for a validator library for new project and not suffering from legacy codes, I think TypeBox would be much better choice than io-ts and zod. TypeBox can totally replace them.

This check can be done with different libraries like: io-ts, typebox, or zod. These libraries allow you to create objects that represent your typescript definitions. Then, these objects can be used at runtime to validate the received data, in addition, you can also convert this object to a Typescript definition to have all the benefits of using typescript. These objects can be called schema validations because they are responsible for the data validation.

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/