Comments on: Providing JavaScript Developers Helpful Type Errors When They Call Your ReScript Library Incorrectly

By: JesterXL

JesterXL — Sat, 22 May 2021 18:12:52 +0000

In reply to Allain Lalonde. Absolutely, there is no public/private enforcement here. It just has no types, and no helpful error messages when things explode. If a JS developer feels confident they know what they are doing, or is using TypeScript, or has runtime validation of types, then it is reasonably safe.

By: Allain Lalonde

Allain Lalonde — Wed, 19 May 2021 16:11:09 +0000

If it helps anyone here’s a playground with the code entered:

https://rescript-lang.org/try?code=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-QF9ZRktluOJtrV1NpjBoZad1BMd4XFDO-2B4NHWve+5PF5vD5fH7iSILtPVfmw+EBSgQTBT3GoKDy4Ggg44JDU2moqAASWAgthcDYYDANhxeIJze4OFUAAWggU1thAKB0lvYdLxBWooF4NgAkvKCIBQYA6AAEgIGccytBQ0zTAdvS8KAIA4D5+WHXRR2eCdLkiStKCbCB5yIxdmEeZ5XneT5vl+bdvTIZi9yAw9jykX8pAvBVr3BW97zpNEXzfKDP2-D5cXxRCySAlBQPA0AoNyLAEiQlCgTQjCoBw5jWIIoSSNIMiKKoocR2LMcGKnSJG1nNjig424uOXXi1wEzchNIKwbACd5xMhSTT35Ck4PkiYoDvGllOfV93w0n9tP-PT4QMsCIJM0wzMQ5DZMxD4bJw-z8LIQjgucy1yMo6APNorzniwetuOiFiAqmXB8DIMgguCpceNXfiNy3YLhIxeDcQS8lyKMyDoJUgIpxxWEdIAgJg2ANRsQpYV+hQXEAHZQUZV46SNOAEi5HkhTFZULPq6zMNs3Cxta9qOM61yetmjjglCcIVtWzzo0G4anlG1i8nBubmDopghuAEb7PG7GOP6lH8bR0sWrnUnvUhr0fBcnpfCAA

Found a bug this way: toOptions should have been toOption

By: Allain Lalonde

Allain Lalonde — Wed, 19 May 2021 16:09:38 +0000

Neat article!

Does this approach mean that rescript developers will have to call the _audit function if they don’t want to jump through the same hoops?

I think if you define _audit as the JS one, rescript can still use the nice name, and then using package.json’s main or exports properties you can point it to a one line module that exposes _audit as audit:

“`
// export-js.mjs
export {_audit as audit} from ‘./Audit.bs.js’ // I think this is the syntax
“`

Thoughts?

By: JesterXL

JesterXL — Sun, 16 May 2021 19:44:45 +0000

In reply to Szymon. Yes, like TypeScript, you can distribute your .resi files if you wish. To JavaScript developers, much like TypeScript's .td files, they are sort of worthless UNLESS their IDE detects them. However, if you're a ReScript dev, yup, good stuff.

By: Szymon

Szymon — Tue, 27 Apr 2021 16:14:44 +0000

Thanks for the post! I am aware that the whole idea of writing rescript is that you don’t use typescript anymore, but wouldn’t it be useful to generate ts types and ship them with your library? It won’t help with js runtime errors, but might work nicely with ide intellisense