no one writes JavaScript anyway.. ReScript: the ReasonML successor 

if you think of any questions about ReScript between now and then, don't hesitate to drop us a comment (here, discord, email, whatever is easiest for you!)

sounds like a dream. wow. do you use them together in the same app, or just side-by-side for different elements (ReScript for the frontend, F# for the backend, maybe?)?

@@MichiganTypeScript I wish. I mean I just moved my personal projects to F# now. Not yet sure what to do with ReScript. Fable makes F# easy to use on the frontend.

there's still time. after all: at this point, we don't need "winners" and "losers" because it's not zero-sum. e.g. If webassembly opens a lot of doors

it really is a nice middleground, it seems. let us know how it goes! (seriously)

> No one wants to use reasonml, dont associate with it. > But we do need a faster and open source version of something that is like typescript. not arguing (asking humbly): these back-to-back statements seem contradictory. Is it just that you don't like ReScript or that you _do_ like ReScript and want to break any associations between ReScript and ReasonML?

we feel the same way: we'd love to see more content on this area and are crossing our fingers that the MiTS community won't hate it. after all: it's really something TypeScript developers might be interested in and can benefit from (we think... we'll see if we're right!).

would you agree that, ultimately, it's JavaScript that's the mashed together little monster and TypeScript makes it more bearable (although, we understand the "lipstick on a pig" vibes some people get from it)? And thanks: we really want to surface things like ReScript (and others!) because of the whole "rising tide lifts all boats" thing.

@@MichiganTypeScript hehe wait, what other boats?

@@adicide9070 programming languages

if that works for you then full support from us!

same... I think it's a big misconception with types is that it pays off compared to the investment. my observations (and I was dealing with types even before typescript - back when google closure compiler was using es4-like types) is that the overall benefit does not contend the extra effort.

thanks! what did you like about it?

are you saying magic is good or bad?

@@MichiganTypeScript it's bad

@@MichiganTypeScript Bad. When you’re trying to convince engineers magic is the last thing you want to mention 😀

Rob really is a treasure! Do you use (or hope/plan to use) ReScript? Even if not: anything you'd like to hear when Rob shows his company's codebase in the next talk?

seems like you can just hover over it like in TypeScript? no?

this surprised a lot of us at MiTS as well. is there really no way??

@@MichiganTypeScript maybe monorepos could help, but I usually works with huge codebase, where is context is really important. And I can have same names in different contexts. And this contexts can be nested. I leaved it when monorepos was something new, it was 2020 if I am corrent

@@snatvb very interesting. monorepos really are good for such things!

@snatvb You can use .resi (module interface) files to declare which functions (if any) should be public.

@@spacedog4 you didn't get what I mean, I mean global space for modules - i have collisions on module names

we've been thinking of making a video on writing machine code with a quill. would that be interesting?

100% agreed. not a bad thing! "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

I like writing my own utilities and have hand tailored abstractions. So a green field like that makes me feel pretty good. I think I'll check it out 😁

you betcha

haven't used Kotlin: which parts seem similar?

@@MichiganTypeScript how the code is structured, in kotlin functions we can omit the open and closing bracket and all the logic will be inside as a scope of it and the last item will be returned as a value... You could Google and see how it is or to save some time just google for how to use "when expression in kotlin" and you will realize what I want say🙂🙂

Let statements inside block scope is an intrinsic feature of JavaScript. However when the same thing is done in ReScript as shown in 33:54 it's a no no for you? Double standards. Give it a chance before you spread negativity.

@@SubhashishPradhan That's not a closure that's an object statement.

ReScript language documentation disagrees with you.

He was referring to type guards

Type guards were shown in 55:08. I haven't commented on that.

this came up on twitter: thanks for the clarification. it's genuinely hard to get all of this straight: we're hoping that someone from the ReScript/ReasonML/Melange camps (even one person!) will accept our very-genuine offer to make a quick video breaking it all down, but no bites yet (although some people did some good stuff trying to whiteboard it).

It’s not elite, it’s just unfamiliar. OOP has tons of jargon for example, and it’s not labeled as “elite”. It’s also a different concept from a “sum type” (and especially from “product type”)

asking for a friend... what's the difference between a polymorphic variant, a sum type, and a product type?

@@MichiganTypeScript Great question! Here's how I think about it: A sum type is a type-level "OR". If a `foo` type is either A | B | C - it has 3 possible states (that's where the "sum" part comes from, 1 + 1 + 1). In typescript terms, this is a discriminated union. A product type is your typical struct/record found in almost all languages, in the case of JS that would be an object. It's called "product", because you have to multiply (cartesian product) all the combinations of the fields to get the number of states. If you have a record User with 3 boolean fields, it would have 6 possible states (2x2x2). A polymorphic variant is similar to a sum type, but solves certain problems where you'd want to use the same variant constructor in multiple places. Probably best to refer to Rescript and OCaml docs for more details, I don't think I can do them justice in this format :) ocaml.org/manual/5.2/polyvariant.html rescript-lang.org/docs/manual/latest/polymorphic-variant

​@@MichiganTypeScript A sum type is basically like an enum, an enumeration type has a limited/fixed number of variations, for example TimeOfDayEnum = PM | AM or LedEnum = Red | Green | Blue. In type theory, a type with a fixed number of variants goes by "sum type". The idea is that the total number of possible values for this type is simply the sum of its variants. TimeOfDayEnum has 2 possible values and LedEnum 3. A product type, on the other hand, is more like a record. For example, a Coordinate record can have entries for X and Y. Coordinate(X, Y). The number of possible values for Coordinate is the product of all possible values for X and Y, i.e., X times Y. Hence, the name product type (for example, Coordinate has 2 x 3 = 6 possible values for values int X = 1..2 and int Y = 1..3). Sum types and product types go also by the name Algebraic Data Type (ADT). Algebraic is math speak for types that combine. Example: take Person(Name, AgeCategory) where AgeCategory = Minor | Adult. Person is a product type combined with a Name and a sum type. Sum Type can also consist of other sum types or product types. Deeply nested or recursive Sum Types and Product types are possible too (json). In OCaml, sum types are also called Variants. For polymorphic variants google up "Polymorphic vs. ordinary variants in OCaml" (Yehonathan Sharvit).

@@akis854 apologies, I was being too dramatic 😆