linqbox VS typescript-needs-types

Positioning the Ark parser as a unified string syntax for runtime types (to me at least) makes the rationales and justifications for string parsing much more apparent and focused, much more so than just saying "hey, here's a library to write your types with strings just because". It also services as a prototypal implementation of what JS types "could" look like one day (if only we could drop the `scope` and `type` and just write the types naturally in JavaScript), I took a similar approach with https://github.com/sinclairzx81/linqbox many years ago.

Well, I wrote this ... https://github.com/sinclairzx81/linqbox, an actual LINQ syntax mostly for cartesian products (because cartesians with lambda are quite awkward after all)

One shouldn't need to look OData query syntax. For a C# client querying an OData endpoint, one simply need only write LINQ. A problem that exists in current fashionable languages is they do not support anything resembling LINQ. (Although some options exist for Elixir (Ecto) and Rust (implemented via proceedural macro). As for JavaScript....I have tried https://github.com/sinclairzx81/linqbox

If you ask me, TypeScript is a legitimate successor to C#. The only stuff missing in TypeScript is LINQ (as you mentioned) which is why I wrote this, and System.Reflection which is why I wrote this.

Thanks for the response. Here's a fun library I wrote https://github.com/sinclairzx81/linqbox

Welcome to the list: https://www.typescriptneedstypes.com/

Lol, look what I just found, someone created a whole petition about adding runtime type information (which would make a lot of use libraries redundant): https://www.typescriptneedstypes.com/

Author of TypeBox here. myzod looks great :) There are a surprising amount of projects emerging nowadays in this space, but I rarely get a chance to converse with other authors. I see your project is on THE LIST too https://github.com/akutruff/typescript-needs-types :)