Unchained VS Caddy

Anything with a finite (200 is small even) number of units misses the algebraic structure of the problem mentioned in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36988497 wherein multiplying|dividing two things gives you a (potentially) new unit which implies an open ended "space" of units.

To be concrete (hah!), in C++ a template meta-type with 12 signed integer parameters (6 numerators & 6 denominators for rational exponents of SI base units) might be one way to model it.

Unlike C++ template stuff, Nim macros (like Lisp macros) makes metaprogramming more like procedural programming - just against abstract syntax trees. I think that helps to shield some of this type complexity from users, but the documentation README https://github.com/SciNim/Unchained does better job than I can in an HN comment.

Of course, for unit system conversion, the number of dimensions (6 in SI, 3 in CGS/Gaussian) changes. So, for full generality you need compile-time (if you want static type integration/CT errors) linear algebra over a rational field (at least & conventionally) to project|inverse project. That might be theoretically possible in C++. I would think it very un-fun and unlikely to ever have been done. There's probably a Mathematica package, though.

I've recently written a units library for Nim [0]. It's still WIP, but it's already proven extremely useful for me as a physicist.

Thanks to Nim's strong type system and metaprogramming features, it allows for a fully compile time design, without any runtime overhead (in form of special unit objects or such things; everything is a `distinct float`).

In addition Nim's unicode support, the code even looks nice!

A more complex use case (I can link more if desired): [1]

[0]: https://github.com/SciNim/Unchained/

[1]: https://github.com/SciNim/Unchained/tree/master/examples

No, look at the associated unit test: https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/blob/c6eb186064091c79f4...

If that test fails we could serve PHP source code instead of having it be evaluated, a major security flaw.

However, it's very unlikely that .NET developers will directly expose their Kestrel-based web apps to the internet. Typically, we use other popular web servers like Nginx, Traefik, and Caddy to act as a reverse-proxy in front of Kestrel for various reasons:

I think that recompiling with upgraded Go will not solve the issue. It seems Caddy imports `golang.org/x/net/http2` and pins it to v0.22.0 which is vulnerable: https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/6219#issuecommen....

Caddy [1] is a single binary. It is not minimal, but the size difference is barely noticeable.

serve also comes to mind. If you have node installed, `npx serve .` does exactly that.

There are a few go projects that fit your description, none of them very popular, probably because they end up being a 20-line wrapper around http frameworks just like this one.

[1] https://caddyserver.com/

Each app’s front end is built with Qwik and uses Tailwind for styling. The server-side is powered by Qwik City (Qwik’s official meta-framework) and runs on Node.js hosted on a shared Linode VPS. The apps also use PM2 for process management and Caddy as a reverse proxy and SSL provisioner. The data is stored in a PostgreSQL database that also runs on a shared Linode VPS. The apps interact with the database using Drizzle, an Object-Relational Mapper (ORM) for JavaScript. The entire infrastructure for both apps is managed with Terraform using the Terraform Linode provider, which was new to me, but made provisioning and destroying infrastructure really fast and easy (once I learned how it all worked).

So I dug a little deeper and came across this gem: Caddy. Caddy is this fantastic, extensible, cross-platform, open-source web server that's written in Go. The best part? It comes with automatic HTTPS. It basically condenses all the work our scripts and manual maintenance were doing into just 4-5 lines of config. So, stick around and I'll walk you through how to set up an automatic SSL solution with Caddy, Docker and a Node.js server.

Let's use Caddy which can act as reverse-proxy with automatic HTTPS coverage.

Even if it may be simple, it doesn't handle edge cases such as https://github.com/caddyserver/caddy/issues/1632

I personally would make the trade off of taking on more complexity so that I can have extra compatibility.

One of the most heavily used Russian software projects on the internet https://www.nginx.com/blog/do-svidaniya-igor-thank-you-for-n... but it's only marginally more modern than Apache httpd.

In light of recently announced nginx memory-safety vulnerabilities I'd suggest migrating to Caddy https://caddyserver.com/