4 ms·

Maybe I was unclear - my post was a criticism of Zod because it involves a bunch of duct tape that I'm not sure makes sense. Typebox just creates JSON Schema o

Maybe I was unclear - my post was a criticism of Zod because it involves a bunch of duct tape that I'm not sure makes sense. Typebox just creates JSON Schema objects at runtime and projects them into the type system with `Static<T>`. In so doing, you simultaneously create schema and types and the process of doing so is pleasant--you can just hand a TObject to Fastify as a validator object and you're done. Plus, with a Typebox type provider, it infers down to your handler. JSON Schema is the lingua franca; to me, working in it, rather than converting to it, is a much easier proposition.

franky47 4y ago
Interesting, I'll have a look, thanks!
yencabulator 4y ago
Zod has the same "simultaneously create schema and types and the process of doing so is pleasant" feature, it's just not using JSON Schema for it (and has more power than JSON schema does). In the Zod world, if you need JSON Schema to e.g. communicate to the outside world, you can extract it from the Zod schema with https://github.com/StefanTerdell/zod-to-json-schema https://github.com/StefanTerdell/zod-to-json-schema -- but if you don't, you don't. JSON Schema is kind of underpowered for real validation, so if you limit yourself to it, then you'll just have a another round of validation immediately after. TypeBox' s CreateType seems to be the same idea, it cannot be expressed in just JSON Schema.
- eropple 4y ago
  I think Colin's a rad programmer, he works on EdgeDB which is absolutely my favorite datastore I've ever used and I think Zod's fine if you want to use it. But I don't agree with your premise. I don't, in practice, find the way Zod asks you to think about data compelling. It's probably because I think specifically in communication between systems; making the particulars of the interchange format central to the act of writing the thing, for me, keeps top-of-mind the necessity of both ends having an identical understanding of the allowable semantics. (Similarly, I've never used any Typebox features that don't map to JSON Schema, and I've never felt the need to.)

franky47 4y ago

Interesting, I'll have a look, thanks!

yencabulator 4y ago

Zod has the same "simultaneously create schema and types and the process of doing so is pleasant" feature, it's just not using JSON Schema for it (and has more power than JSON schema does). In the Zod world, if you need JSON Schema to e.g. communicate to the outside world, you can extract it from the Zod schema with https://github.com/StefanTerdell/zod-to-json-schema https://github.com/StefanTerdell/zod-to-json-schema -- but if you don't, you don't. JSON Schema is kind of underpowered for real validation, so if you limit yourself to it, then you'll just have a another round of validation immediately after. TypeBox' s CreateType seems to be the same idea, it cannot be expressed in just JSON Schema.

eropple 4y ago
I think Colin's a rad programmer, he works on EdgeDB which is absolutely my favorite datastore I've ever used and I think Zod's fine if you want to use it. But I don't agree with your premise. I don't, in practice, find the way Zod asks you to think about data compelling. It's probably because I think specifically in communication between systems; making the particulars of the interchange format central to the act of writing the thing, for me, keeps top-of-mind the necessity of both ends having an identical understanding of the allowable semantics. (Similarly, I've never used any Typebox features that don't map to JSON Schema, and I've never felt the need to.)