🚀 Tolk vs TL‑B: Stop Translating Schemas, Start Modeling Types

If you are coming to Tolk from FunC, you might look for TL‑B equivalents or try generating TL‑B schemas from Tolk structs. That approach can make sense in FunC, but it is not required in Tolk.

▪️ TL‑B vs Tolk: TL‑B describes inputs, storage, and structure for low-level FunC contracts. Tolk defines these directly through structs that specify layout, typing, optionality, and serialization. The type system becomes the main source of truth.

▪️ Tooling and features: ABI generation, TypeScript wrappers, source maps, and debugger integration work directly with Tolk types. Tolk also supports type aliases, enums, inline unions, tensors, and custom serialization — features TL‑B does not cover.

▪️ Where TL‑B still fits: TL‑B remains useful for TON protocol internals like block.tlb. For contracts, messages, and storage, Tolk types are the authoritative definition.

▪️ Mindset shift: In Tolk, the type system is the schema. Model data directly in the language instead of translating external schemas.

📚 Read the full blog for more insights!

✅ Think in types, not schemas.