Hacker News Reader

It's worth noting that the Pydantic author stated he's rewriting parts of the validation in Rust for the next major release, with the aims of drastically improving performance.

I'm definitely interested in a simple type-safe validator library, but that planned performance boost is pretty tempting.

View on HN

Quick follow-up that it looks like koda_validate is usually slower when validating dictionaries out of the box. Good news is it's clear where I should optimize, and that I'll add some benchmarks to this; optimistic Koda Validate can get faster than Pydantic. Thanks for the feedback!

That's really helpful to hear. A few thoughts:

- I haven't benchmarked this against pydantic... I guess I should!

- I would _hope_ that Koda Validate is at least competitive with Pydantic... because Koda Validate's main core improvement (IMO) is a consistent idea of what a validator is, validators in Koda Validate are actually much simpler than in Pydantic, meaning I would generally expect fewer instructions to be executed

- 3.11 (and 3.12) are both focused on performance. Both pydantic and Koda Validate might get some "free" performance boosts anyway (Thanks CPython devs!)

May also be good to benchmark against attrs which also seems to be similar to what you want to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com