José Valim on X: “I'd say it is a bit trickier than that. We most likely don't have a ty…”

A fast, private reader for public X posts. No account, no tracking, no pop-ups.

PeekX is an independent tool and is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by X Corp. “X” and “Twitter” are trademarks of their respective owners. We only show posts that their authors made public and never access private or protected accounts. Downloaded media belongs to its creators — please respect their rights.

José Valim on X: “I'd say it is a bit trickier than that. We most likely don't have a ty…” | PeekX

Username or post link

Home / @josevalim / Post

zack

@zack_overflow

Oct 7

I think the models could design something better than Typescript

TS's type system is unsound, look at how easy it is to have a `string[]` actually contain `number`!

Type theory is a very formally verifiable domain, I would expect a model to formally verify the type system

50 4 284

José Valim

@josevalim

Replying to @zack_overflow

I'd say it is a bit trickier than that.

We most likely don't have a type system that can precisely express all JavaScript idioms. Elixir is not as complex as JavaScript in many respects, and we still had to develop a lot of new theory for its type system!

So when you find an

elixir-lang.orgStrong arrows: a new approach to gradual typing

Oct 8, 2026, 11:12 AM UTC

5 154

Downloads

This post has no photos or videos. You can still save it as an image or copy its text below.

Save & share

Turn this post into a clean image, or copy it as text or Markdown.

Open on X