[HN Gopher] Zod v4 Beta
___________________________________________________________________
Zod v4 Beta
Author : mycroft_4221
Score : 72 points
Date : 2025-04-12 21:03 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (v4.zod.dev)
(TXT) w3m dump (v4.zod.dev)
| aleksiy123 wrote:
| All I can say is looks really good.
| move-on-by wrote:
| I only use Zod in a single library, so my experience with it is
| pretty minimal. One thing I have really enjoyed with it is the
| low maintenance.
|
| So, when I saw this post and read the first few paragraphs, I was
| filled with dread for having to do yet another major dependency
| update. Reading of all the improvements- surly the 'breaking
| changes' list must be massive.
|
| Having read the full article, it seems like the breaking changes
| have been kept within reason. One major improvement that stands
| out to me is the improved Recursive types support, but there is
| certainly any number of improvements for others to be excited
| about.
|
| The thing I enjoyed most is that excitement of the Arthur really
| shines throughout the whole article. I'm so thankful this library
| exists and is being lovingly maintained by someone who is
| genuinely interested in it.
| Rodeoclash wrote:
| We stuck with Yup and ignored Joi, Zod and god knows what else
| has come down the pipeline since. Rather than wasting time
| upgrading, we've instead built useful features.
|
| That said, we are slowly phasing out our React frontend for one
| of our apps page by page and replacing it with what we use over
| the rest of apps: Phoenix + Liveview. The changeset system for
| validations has proven itself time and time again to both be fast
| but also to handle many of the curly validation problems we might
| have. It also has barely changed since its release.
|
| If you have a disciplined frontend team then you might be able to
| make it work. They have to be able to ignore the latest shiny
| thing that has come along, but if you don't then you'll have a
| team that is busy constantly upgrading to the latest shiny
| library rather than getting anything done.
| mary-ext wrote:
| This is awesome, bundle size has been my number one issue
| preventing me from trying out Zod as v3 shipped with validations
| that were unnecessary for frontend use but weren't able to be
| treeshaken.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| My team has been building a greenfield SaaS app for the past ~9
| months and when we started, we went all in on Zod and so far the
| experience has been pretty fantastic. Zod is very intuitive to
| use and being able to generate typescript types off the schemas
| is very useful. Though with that said if you're already using Yup
| or Joi I don't recommend switching as there's just not enough of
| a reason to switch over.
| cjonas wrote:
| I've really enjoyed typebox. Any reason to check out zod v4?
| jmull wrote:
| > Zod v3.0 was released in May 2021...
|
| v3 didn't last four years. Can we expect much different from v4?
|
| If you're migrating your zod 3 code, I'd migrate to something
| more stable and long-lived than v4 is likely to be -- unless you
| want to be going through it all again in a few years (and yet
| again a few years after that, etc).
|
| I don't blame the maintainers (I assume they don't have a fat
| support and maintenance contract)
|
| But developers need to go in with their eyes open when it comes
| to adopting these throw-away libraries and frameworks.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-12 23:00 UTC)