koda-validate VS typedload

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

Author of typedload here!

FastAPI relies on (not so fast) pydantic, which is one of the slowest libraries in that category.

Don't expect to find such benchmarks on the pydantic documentation itself, but the competing libraries will have them.

[0] https://ltworf.github.io/typedload/

I wrote typedload, which is significantly faster than pydantic. Just uses normal dataclasses/attrs/NamedTuple, has a better API and is pure Python!

I read all the perftests in the repo. I think they nearly all parse a structure that contains a repetition of the same or similar thing a couple hundred thousand times times and the timing function returns the min and max of 5 attempts. I just picked one example for posting.

Not a Python expert, but could the Pydantic tests be possibly not realistic and/or misleading because they are using kwargs in __init__ [1] to parse the object instead of calling the parse_obj class method [2]? According to some PEPs [3], isn't Python creating a new dictionary for that parameter which would be included in the timing? That would be unfortunate if that accounted for the difference.

Something else I think about is if a performance test doesn't produce a side effect that is checked, a smart compiler or runtime could optimize the whole benchmark away. Or too easy for the CPU to do branch prediction, etc. I think I recall that happening to me in Java in the past, but probably not happened here in Python.

[1] https://github.com/ltworf/typedload/blob/37c72837e0a8fd5f350...

[2] https://docs.pydantic.dev/usage/models/#helper-functions

[3] https://peps.python.org/pep-0692/