I Hate NestJS

Ethan Glover

When I wrote I Love NestJS, I made a mistake. I was in the middle of exploring a lot of options for GraphQL when I came across it. I got excited by the fact that I could easily use the framework to generate a GraphQL API with a simple OOP approach. I forgot that Object Oriented Programming is Bad. In that excitement I wrote up the post comparing the syntax to Nexus and Apollo. The simple syntax made things feel cleaner and more organized.

The irony is that I started that article with the words, “Decorators and Dependency Injection containers. Gross.” But I wasn't giving proper weight to the fact that NestJS uses patterns that are meant to solve problems with OOP. In a hybrid language like TypeScript, they just get in the way.

Shortly after, I added two NestJS courses to my recommended list. I feel bad about this. That list is supposed to be a way for people to start from knowing nothing about programming to learning the industry standards of web development. NestJS does not follow industry standards. And so I want to apologize for including those courses on that list. I let my excitement over the illusion that NestJS casts cloud my judgement.

So I will be removing those courses from that list. But I also want to list the reasons why you should not use NestJS.


Decorators are used to add new behaviors to objects without extending or affecting the base class.

This is a problem we don't have in standard TypeScript design. If we use a class in TypeScript it is meant as a simple way to instantiate an object and couple methods. It is NOT used as a way to design a system.

Let's take an example from Refactoring Guru. In this example a decorator is used to create a composition pattern in order to send notifications via various channels. But with TypeScript, we should never find ourselves in this mess to begin with. Instead, a simple exported function which accepts a notification type as an argument suffices.

Decorators help solve a problem when ALL code MUST reside within classes and you do not want the overhead of inheritance. But because in TypeScript, all code does not have to reside in classes, this pattern is solving no problems. It is simply unnecessary complexity resulting from improper thinking and design.


class-validator: For a long time NestJS depended on class-validator which famously has scarce open-source support, has never hit a full version 1, and regularly suffers from security vulnerabilities that can take years to fix. While NestJS was finally able to rid itself of the class-validator dependency by forking it with @nestjs/class-validator, it's not exactly a full replacement. NestJS still depends on class-validator to a degree as they have not exactly rewritten the library to fix all of its known problems.

TypeORM: This has to be the worst ORM on the market. For the life of me, I have now idea how simple connectors like TypeORM manage to maintain any popularity when alternatives like Prisma exist. TypeORM is not even typed. When you run a .findOne() method is just passes back a generic. Compared to Prisma which returns a specific type according to the columns and relationships chosen. Not to mention the more intuitive API, cursor pagination, the fluent API for relationships, nested reads and writes (no JOIN madness), more robust filtering, and the fact that the query engine runs on the native machine. And yes, you can use any ORM with Nest, but the fact that they recommend it shows how out of touch NestJS is.

Dependency Injection

This is the stupidest part of NestJS and one they seem to be the most proud of. Dependency Injection is again a way to bring composition to OOP. (Which again is irrelevant to TypeScript.) The idea goes that while writing unit tests, you don't want to have to deal with nested objects. If the class instantiates and runs another class, you have to worry about effectively testing it as well. So instead, you pass classes needed into the constructor and instantiate them there.

NestJS is meant to handle this process automatically so long as you tell it which classes the current one depends on. What this creates however, is a mess of having to add dependencies to a module file and tests, which then expands to any parent classes of that class. Adding simple functionality to anything gets to be a massive pain of watching a dev server fail, adding dependencies, watching it fail again, on loop until you finally chain your way up to whatever level its happy with. And when you run your tests, you have to go through the whole process all over again.

But is the pay off worth it? Nope, you still have to create manual mocks for everything or depend on jest.spyOn() in order to make sure that you don't have to run methods from other classes. So this entire ritual becomes completely meaningless. Composition with classes works just fine in TypeScript without the modules to manage them.

jest.spyOn() in your tests would have solved this entire problem. And of course, if you're writing as many pure functions as possible, your code is always going to be far more testable than trying to trap everything within the confines of objects to begin with.

Like everything else, dependency injection solves a problem that does not exist in standard TypeScript best practices. It is a way to support poor, and naive code design.


This is just another word for object validation. class-validator sucks. For a more complete solution I recommend Zod but there is also Yup and Joi. All of these follow a more standard syntax, are regularly updated, don't depend on things like decorators, and have far more features.

False Comfort

NestJS is one of those things where people coming from other languages like Java don't know how to develop without the patterns that Java gave them.

It's like when people first hear about GraphQL, they'll look at GQL as a service providers like Hasura and think, “This is putting database logic in the browser, SQL injection!” So they just don't use it. That surface-level judgement is as naive and nubile as it gets.

Java developers think, “If I can't use decorators, how can I change methods without affecting the base class?” ...What base class? Why are you extending anything? Your reusable methods should not be trapped within the confines of inheritance chains, or even classes for that matter.

“If there's no dependency injection, you can't test classes with dependencies!” jest.spyOn works fine if needed, and in fact you still have to use it with dependency injection. But this is still thinking in inherited classes and not really the kind of problem you should be thinking about with TS.

The perceived need for these things are a naive misunderstanding of how a language like TypeScript is typically designed. By forcing solutions to problems that don't exist, NestJS creates 3x-5x the amount of work and code that it would take to do the same thing with established best practices.

Which is why I say, for the love of god, do not ruin TypeScript development with awful instant legacy garbage like NestJS. It may feel exciting to see how it generates GraphQL, or having an Angular-like CLI. But good GraphQL takes a lot of work no matter how you slice it, and if you want the CLI, try NX. NestJS just creates a mess and nothing more. You're better off learning how to code.