dynamodb-toolbox VS zod

One of them was that it had originally been coded in JavaScript. Although Jeremy rewrote the source code in TypeScript in 2020, it didn't handle type inference, a feature that I eventually came to implement myself in the v0.4.

If you have in mind features that I missed, or would like to see some of the ones I mentioned prioritised, please comment this article and/or create an issue or open a discussion on the official repo with the v1 label 👍

For instance, here is an example of the same UpdateCommand with one of those wrappers, DynamoDB-Toolbox:

It's been mature enough for at least four years.

1. Not an issue for me. Connection reuse support in Lambda is quite good

2. NoSQL is a good skill to keep your in bucket anyhow. DynamoDB is a different approach, but much of the same tenets you'll find in other NoSQL databases still apply. Using tools like dynamodb-toolbox [1] help greatly with paradigm shifts into Dynamo.

3. True. Ask yourself how much this matters. How likely is it that you'll need to support another cloud provider for a single product? In 20 years I've seen a platform provider switch exactly once. And DynamoDB can be exported easily.

4. Nope. But there are things to learn about cold starts; how to structure code, where to initialize things, which things should be singletons, etc.

5. Depends on the situations and needs. The right tool for the right job, if you will. I've written GraphQL servers that run on lambda which serve 300k users daily. I've also done the same using Fargate/ECS et al. Much of the decisions revolve around complexity of execution and cost factors (e.g. the cost and complexity of running lambda's to process data often versus a Fargate service). You're getting into Software Architecture now.

6. Again, depends on the situation. You'll need to start thinking about what individual services/components/things are doing, what they need, and how they need to run. Gather that information, and then start cost comparisons using the pricing tools the provider has.

[1] https://github.com/jeremydaly/dynamodb-toolbox

Note that all these entities will belong to the same DynamoDB table. We define only one partition key and one sort key for this table: both of type string. Key is the values we provide for these keys. As you can imagine, this quickly can become a bit tangled mess. Therefore I recommend to express this 'schema' (e.g. of what types of keys we lay over our base table) in code. Later in this article I will show how this can be accomplished using the DynamoDB Toolbox framework.

I use single table design with app sync through this library: https://github.com/jeremydaly/dynamodb-toolbox

Serverless Cloud further reduces the cognitive load on developers by automatically applying best practices for APIs, data, storage, CDNs, and more. For example, Jeremy Daly, GM of Serverless Cloud, created the DynamoDB Toolbox to help developers implement the best practices of single table design for Amazon DynamoDB. Serverless Data bakes in those best practices for you and provides a simple interface to manage your data. Similarly, your API endpoint will automatically have a sufficient amount of computational resources by simply using the api interface of our SDK. Serverless Cloud continuously adapts the best configuration for your application, letting you focus on solving business problems, not infrastructure ones.

I like the idea, especially since I found libraries like https://github.com/jeremydaly/dynamodb-toolbox or https://github.com/sensedeep/dynamodb-onetable not elastic or up to date enough for me and reverted to raw AWS SDK. I look forward to AWS SDK v3 support in your typings!

[Zod Documentation](https://zod.dev/) [Zod Error Handling](https://zod.dev/ERROR_HANDLING?id=error-handling-in-zod) [React-Hook-Form Documentation](https://react-hook-form.com/get-started) [Hookform Resolvers](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@hookform/resolvers)

This is a very fair comment, and you seem open to understanding why types are useful.

"problems that are due to typing" is a very difficult thing to unpack because types can mean _so_ many things.

Static types are absolutely useless (and, really, a net negative) if you're not using them well.

Types don't help if you don't spend the time modeling with the type system. You can use the type system to your advantage to prevent invalid states from being represented _at all_.

As an example, consider a music player that keeps track of the current song and the current position in the song.

If you model this naively you might do something like: https://gist.github.com/shepherdjerred/d0f57c99bfd69cf9eada4...

In the example above you _are_ using types. It might not be obvious that some of these issues can be solved with stronger types, that is, you might say that "You rarely see problems that are due to typing".

Here's an example where the type system can give you a lot more safety: https://gist.github.com/shepherdjerred/0976bc9d86f0a19a75757...

You'll notice that this kind of safety is pretty limited. If you're going to write a music app, you'll probably need API calls, local storage, URL routes, etc.

TypeScript's typechecking ends at the "boundaries" of the type system, e.g. it cannot automatically typecheck your fetch or localStorage calls return the correct types. If you're casting, you're bypassing the type systems and making it worthless. Runtime type checking libraries like Zod [0] can take care of this for you and are able to typecheck at the boundaries of your app so that the type system can work _extremely_ well.

[0]: https://zod.dev/ note: I mentioned Zod because I like it. There are _many_ similar libraries.

Zod is an open-source schema declaration and validation library that emphasizes TypeScript. It can refer to any data type, from simple to complex. Zod eliminates duplicative type declarations by inferring static TypeScript types and allows easy composition of complex data structures from simpler ones. It has no dependencies, is compatible with Node.js and modern browsers, and has a concise, chainable interface. Zod is lightweight (8kb when zipped), immutable, with methods returning new instances. It encourages parsing over validation and is not limited to TypeScript but works well with JavaScript as well.

Zod is a TypeScript-first schema declaration and validation library. It helps create schemas for any data type and is very developer-friendly. Zod has the functional approach of "parse, don't validate." It supports coercion in all primitive types.

Link: https://zod.dev/

You can check out their documentation here.

You can learn more about Zod on their website here.

In JS, it's a good idea anyway to use some JSON parsing library instead of JSON.parse.

With Zod, you can use z.bigint() parser. If you take the "parse any JSON" snippet https://zod.dev/?id=json-type and change z.number() to z.bigint(), it should do what you are looking for.

We will validate our input using client-side zod. Zod handles TypeScript-first schema validation with static type inference. This means that it will not only validate your fields, it will also set types on validated fields.