# Frequently asked questions

## Does `Relude` work with native ReasonML/OCaml?

`Relude` does **not** currently support compiling with native ReasonML/OCaml (i.e. via esy nor dune).
There are some issues open for exploring the possibility of compiling on the native OCaml
environment.

- [bs-abstract native compilation issue](https://github.com/Risto-Stevcev/bs-abstract/issues/13)
- [Relude native compilation issue](https://github.com/reazen/relude/issues/133)

## Why does `Relude` use peer dependencies for everything, rather than hard production dependencies?

The way that `npm` installs dependencies was designed specifically for the JavaScript ecosystem,
where it made sense for each library to install its own set of dependencies.  That way, each dependency could be installed with some level of confidence that it would work with its own set of dependencies, and not be affected by other libraries installing other likely incompatible versions of the same dependencies.

However, in a statically-typed language, this doesn't work so well, because the compiler seeks to align the shared types across modules and libraries.  E.g. if two libraries `A` and `B` depend on some module `C`, the compiler will expect to find a single version of the library `C`, so that it can compile `A` and `B` with the same types exposed by `C`.  If this were not the case, it would be difficult for libraries to work together with the same shared types.

We use peer dependencies in all `Relude` libraries, so that the top-level host library or application can ultimately control what single version of each dependency is installed.  E.g. `Relude` depends on `bs-abstract` as a peer dependency, so any library using `Relude` must also explicitly install `bs-abstract`, as it won't be installed automatically with `Relude`.

## What's the difference between `Relude.Result` and `Belt.Result`, `Relude.Option` and OCaml stdlib `option`, `Relude.Js.Json` and `Js.Json`, etc.?

`Relude` has many modules that augment existing types from `Belt` or the OCaml standard library, which are both available by default within BuckleScript/ReasonML projects.  Sometimes we alias the types from `Belt` or the OCaml stdlib, and sometimes our corresponding modules simply add additional functions for these common types.

`Relude` also has many of its own types, which have their own modules, like `Relude.AsyncResult`, `Relude.ReaderT`, etc.

## I'm getting strange errors about types like `array(string)` not being the same as `BsAbstract.Array.Foldable.t`

If you are trying to compile and get an error like:

```reasonml
This has type array(t) but somewhere wanted BsAbstract.Array.Foldable.t(string)`
```

you likely need to add `bs-abstract` to your `bs-dependencies` in your `bsconfig.json` file.  This error occurs because BuckleScript is not able to find the types defined in the `BsAbstract` module, so it can't determine that `array(t)` is the same type as `BsAbstract.Array.Foldable.t(string)`.

Because we are not using .rei interface files, we are not able to abstract these types away for functions that get included into our implementation modules.  (See .rei topic below).

## Why doesn't `Relude` have interface (.rei) files?

e`Relude` relies heavily on the module [include](https://reasonml.github.io/docs/en/module#extending-modules) capability of ReasonML/OCaml.  Many of the typeclasses in `Relude` have extension modules that can be `include`'d into your module to add a variety of useful utility functions, operators, and extension modules to your host module "for free," simply because you've taken the time to create an instance of a given typeclass.  Because there are lots of functions automatically added to many modules, it becomes difficult to maintain good .rei files which expose all of these automatically added functions, while at the same time including documentation and more specialized type annotations.  Until we have a maintainable solution for this challenge, we are avoiding the use of .rei files.
