Marc J. Schmidt

I'm afraid they are needed to get all features of deepkit/framework out of the box. Removing them means disabling features and making installation more complicated. What about removing these libraries...

This is implemented here https://github.com/deepkit/deepkit-framework/commit/866009937768d680132555ee1574a9cb19fe5bbb. It does not support expressions like `class B extends A {}` because that would mean we have to put a constructor into B that defines...

Yes, that still works. In fact it got a lot more modular. What is your use-case exactly? If you tell more about what you are planning to do I can...

Wasn't planned yet, but seems like a reasonable addition. We have already all the schema information normalized in a `ClassSchema`, so a JSON-Schema generator should not take that much time....

> the type mapping would be colocated to the validator definitions JSON-Schema is one validation framework. Adding knowledge about that domain to the validators itself, would lock that framework. However,...

Absolutely, its planned to do that + a videos series, after we are feature complete.

There is no public roadmap, but I've put together a small (always changing) list of things that is being worked on: https://github.com/deepkit/deepkit-framework/projects/1. That should give some insights on what to...

Yeah, deepkit/rpc is not yet documented (only for the framework part). Is that what you mean with broken? In my experiences, the library deepkit/RPC made my life so much easier....

Honestly, I had never in my entire career the need for GraphQL. The costs of low performance and to make type-safetly working was just too damn high. I see the...

> were really the existing RPC clients that bad? Yes, for me definitely. My driver in all my libraries was constantly: high performance in terms of execution speed and high...