zod VS typescript-runtime-type-benchmarks

Link: https://zod.dev/

You can check out their documentation 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.

It is (or should be) common practice to parse/validate any external data you depend on. You should be doing this for Javascript too. I find that the library https://zod.dev/ is quite helpful for this

Astro uses Zod, a Typescript-first schema validation library, to type-check the collections' schemas. It helps validate data types when using collections inside UI components.

When starting a new project with Next.js these days, next-intl and zod are my go to libraries for internationalization and schema validation, respectively. Of course, when using zod for client-facing validations I would like to translate potential error messages. The package zod-i18n can be used to achieve this for i18next, a popular alternative internationalization library. This means that by using this library as starting point one can quickly achieve zod translation with next-intl.

That is certainly one interpretation, but even then within most compile-time but not runtime-checked languages you can usually perform runtime checks. For example I've used Zod (https://zod.dev/) quite a bit in typescript to do runtime typechecks at the boundaries.

Learn more about Zod in the official documentation

Zod for robust type validation, enhancing code reliability.

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.

In terms of performance, TypeBox currently ranks 3rd in terms of overall performance benchmarks here, with 1st and 2nd place given to AOT solutions (ones that require TS compiler transforms). TypeBox (like Ajv) provides a JIT solution as well as a dynamic type checking solution for applications under code evaluation constraints.