4 ms·

They discuss this in their docs. https://rescript-lang.org/docs/manual/latest/introduction#difference-vs-typescript https://rescript-lang.org/docs/manual/lates

They discuss this in their docs. https://rescript-lang.org/docs/manual/latest/introduction#difference-vs-typescript 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 https://rescript-lang.org/docs/gentype/latest/introduction

edf13 4y ago
That comes across very much as a “we fixed all these nasty issues with Typescript” comparison
- iddan 4y ago
  The Reason team is not motivated by hate, rather they have a different POV than the TypeScript team. They are focused on full soundness instead of full JS ergonomics.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  I would say literally the first 2 sentences of the first bullet point say something very different: > TypeScript's (admittedly noble) goal is to cover the entire JavaScript feature set and more. ReScript covers only a curated subset of JavaScript.
- codeptualize 4y ago
  I think they describe well that Typescript needs a lot of complexity by supporting all of JS. That's both a strength and a weakness, easy to get started for people who know JS, but typings can get crazy complex. Rescript has a different approach which has lots of benefits, it is much better in terms of type inference, it's much faster, and I think it's fair to say safer. The tradeoff is that it's not JS, making it harder to adopt. I do think they are doing a great job in taking steps to present the ocaml origins in more JS friendly patterns and syntax, but it still requires learning some new concepts. I think a somewhat good comparison is; If Typescript is like C# for JS, Rescript is like F#/ocaml for JS. Different technologies have different tradeoffs.

4 ms·

They discuss this in their docs. https://rescript-lang.org/docs/manual/latest/introduction#difference-vs-typescript https://rescript-lang.org/docs/manual/lates

by martypitt 4y ago

edf13 4y ago
That comes across very much as a “we fixed all these nasty issues with Typescript” comparison
- iddan 4y ago
  The Reason team is not motivated by hate, rather they have a different POV than the TypeScript team. They are focused on full soundness instead of full JS ergonomics.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  I would say literally the first 2 sentences of the first bullet point say something very different: > TypeScript's (admittedly noble) goal is to cover the entire JavaScript feature set and more. ReScript covers only a curated subset of JavaScript.
- codeptualize 4y ago
  I think they describe well that Typescript needs a lot of complexity by supporting all of JS. That's both a strength and a weakness, easy to get started for people who know JS, but typings can get crazy complex. Rescript has a different approach which has lots of benefits, it is much better in terms of type inference, it's much faster, and I think it's fair to say safer. The tradeoff is that it's not JS, making it harder to adopt. I do think they are doing a great job in taking steps to present the ocaml origins in more JS friendly patterns and syntax, but it still requires learning some new concepts. I think a somewhat good comparison is; If Typescript is like C# for JS, Rescript is like F#/ocaml for JS. Different technologies have different tradeoffs.