4 ms·
ArkType looks anything but ergonomic to me. Typescript in strings? Double level type encoding? It’s a miracle it can be 100x faster than Zod, but speed was nev
by Aeolun 2y ago
ArkType looks anything but ergonomic to me. Typescript in strings? Double level type encoding?
It’s a miracle it can be 100x faster than Zod, but speed was never my issue with zod to begin with.
- thiht 2y agoI have to agree, I know not all people like the same things, but this looks terrible to me. Maybe it’s like Tailwind in the sense that you learn to like it when you actually use it. The thing is Zod seems fairly standard in the ecosystem, and I value that more than novelty.
- davnicwil 2y agoI've not tried it yet so am reserving judgement, but it doesn't look that bad at all. Heads up, seems overall more scannable than an equivalent zod schema though given the similarity to 'raw' TS. Also it seems like a fairly short hop to this engine being used with actual raw TS types in a compilation step or prisma-style codegen?
- 9dev 2y agoYeah, that type constraints in strings thing also threw me off big time. Zod is, if you learn it, fairly composable and roughly feels like TypeScript types in terms of intuition on capabilities. Im not sure if I want to sacrifice all of that for a vague promise of performance improvements that I realistically never encounter.