arktype VS typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks

I primarily rely on that approach to benchmark ArkType's types.

I was one of the most outspoken supporters of this initiative until I started working on ArkType. That may sound oddly self-serving, and it would be naive to claim objectivity after having invested so much into my own solution to this problem. However, I don't think that's the primary reason I changed my mind.

Since it's not explicitly listed there, I feel I should shout out David Blass and his incredibly cool ArkType project: https://github.com/arktypeio/arktype

He sometimes (used to?) streams himself working on twitch and it's a really comfy place to hang out: https://www.twitch.tv/arktypeio

ArkType is a runtime validation library that can infer TypeScript definitions one-to-one and reuse them as highly-optimized validators for your data.

Could also try ArkType if you haven't seen it.

How would you say the functional chaining style overall compares to a parsed syntax like ArkType?

I'm working on a library called ArkType maybe of interest to you.

If you're interested in the possibilities of this kind of stuff in TypeScript, you should check out ArkType.

Have you tried ArkType?

Has been heavily optimized, both in terms of its types and runtime performance. Even including the static parser, many types are about an order of magnitude more efficient than equivalent Zod. Early results show it as marginally faster than any validator currently published to typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks, not including more complex cases where (2) would give ArkType a much more significant advantage.

Zod is a bit of an underdog but it is not fast, AJV which is slightly more common can validate and generate types too but requires using JSON syntax, TypeBox offers familiar syntax to Zod while still being JSON syntax in the background.

First, they're not fast (runtime type checking benchmarks).

Aha, so you're using a library in Java for this. You know about libraries in TS for this, there are plenty of them btw, but you don't use them because it's so easy. Express has `any` type for `req.body` because authors don't care about this either and it's so easy. And TypeScript is the one to blame in that you prefer to work with `any` type for incoming data rather than validating it.

It is so much faster than Zod that Zod basically doesn't show, https://moltar.github.io/typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks/ and according to bundlejs, https://bundlejs.com/?q=zod%2Czod%2C%40sinclair%2Ftypebox&treeshake=%5B*%5D%2C%5B%7B+default+%7D%5D%2C%5B*%5D&config=%7B%22analysis%22%3Atrue%7D, it is even smaller. I genuinely have no clue why Zod is this popular in 2023.

TypeBox is a bit different to other libraries in this space where it's mostly intended to be used with a auxiliary JSON Schema validator. Although it provides a built in JSON Schema compiler (which is currently the fastest (not-AOT) runtime validator available for JavaScript today), it's equally intended to be used with validators like Ajv (or any other standards compliant validator)

I do plan to add some direct comparisons to https://github.com/moltar/typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks as well but haven't had a chance yet.

I think it's more of a case of the extremely low performance bar that's been set by the status quo (for even the simplest of validation structures). There's been a lot of focus on the TS type inference, and less on the runtime performance (which actually matters more as it does reduce operational costs). It probably wouldn't be such an issue if the performance was reasonable, but I mean here's the full breakdown https://moltar.github.io/typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks/.

I found a benchmark for runtime performance, but I haven't found any for intellisense/editor performance.