rescript-mui VS genType

I've been using ReScript for a few months now. So far I mostly like it, but it takes some time to get used to it. The error messages can be confusing though so I try not to depend too much on type inference. The other downside is that some bindings for some of the web apis seem to be missing (like for the types in the Dom module).

Btw, for Material UI there are already bindings [1]

[1] https://github.com/cca-io/rescript-material-ui

Some even wrote binding generators, as it is hard to keep up with the growth of UI libraries: https://github.com/jsiebern/bs-material-ui/tree/master/tools/binding-generator

I don't really use ts-belt to be certain, but by looking at the source, it seems that it's using genType, which can generate TS types from ReScript values, and that makes interop work really well.

They discuss this in their docs.

https://rescript-lang.org/docs/manual/latest/introduction#di...

Seems like a type system for Javascript, built with a differing set of opinions than Typescript.

Looks like they also offer some form of TS interop:

https://rescript-lang.org/docs/gentype/latest/introduction

TS Belt has been built with ReScript (and its Belt stdlib). ReScript generates highly performant JavaScript code, and with genType it also automatically generates TypeScript types. Moreover, I've added a few codemods to the building process to provide even more code optimizations and cleaner TypeScript signatures.

To interoperate with TypeScript with proper type information you’ll use third-party genType. Add it as a devDependency and annotate the module export you want to generate with @genType (in previous versions you’d surround annotations with square brackets).