koda-validate VS Maat

As someone who built a pure python validation library[0] that's much faster than pydantic (~1.5x - 12x depending on the benchmark), I have to say that this whole focus on Rust seems premature. There's clearly a lot of room for pydantic to optimize its Python implementation.

Beyond that, rust seems like a great fit for tooling (i.e. ruff), but as a library used at runtime, it seems a little odd to make a validation library (which can expect to receive any kind of data valid python data) to also be constrained by a separate set of data types which are valid in rust.

[0]: https://github.com/keithasaurus/koda-validate

For the sake of comparison I built a validate_signature function as part of koda-validate, which has a lot of overlap with beartype. I haven't really compared it to beartype, so I'd be interested to see people's thoughts on how the two approaches compare.

FYI I wrote koda-validate, which is significantly faster than pydantic, has a similar API, and is pure python.

koda-validate – Typesafe Validation

Try msgspec | Maat | turbo for fast serialization and validation

Personally, I think it's great to have many projects solving the same problem and pushing each other further. Although the differences between the faster validations are small, the older ones were quite slow. This will save unnecessary CPU cycles, making it eco-friendly. And now the bar will be even higher with a Rust version, which is really great.

[0]Maat is 2.5 times faster than Pydantic on their own benchmark, as stated in their readme.

[0]https://github.com/Attumm/Maat

https://github.com/Attumm/Maat/blob/main/tests/test_validati...

Since validation is written as dictionaries its possible to store the validations in caching db such as Redis.

And since its simple its easy to extend for anyone use case.

Benchmarks of pydantic has Maat around twice as Pydantic.