tool-conventions VS io-ts

> Better interoperability

AFAIK, the examples you give all target a basic C ABI [0] or can be made to target the same ABI. In Rust, it means targeting wasm32-unknown-emscripten

The Rust team is also working on a "WASM ABI"[1] which would be useful in taking advantage of stuff like multi-value returns, and other compilers could just choose to target that. More likely, the C ABI on WASM will be updated to account for missing features, and that'll be the standard for interoperability in the WASM ecosystem.

[0]: https://github.com/WebAssembly/tool-conventions/blob/main/Ba...

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/blob/master/design-me...

C ABI: Compatible with the C language Application Binary Interface (ABI). So code in the language is usable from other languages. Inspired by Zig. Since compiling to WASM is desirable, WASM's C ABI could probably be used, instead of a separate implementation towards the C ABI.

There is maybe a solution. From what I found the linker will glue constructor functions and they have an associated priority. (look https://github.com/WebAssembly/tool-conventions/blob/master/Linking.md here for the "linking meta data section"). I explored the ldd/wasm source code directory and it looks like there are also destructor functions. I have not found out in which sections such functions should be placed (after 1h of exploration). Would you like to pursue? I am ok to receive pushes or even share owner ship of the repository.

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.