bindata VS Thin

I recently ditched bindata for a self written solution because I couldn't figure out why exactly it leaks memory. According to count objects it creates a shit ton of classes if you read a lot of data and idk why

"Writing an entire custom program" is the best way. Ruby has a nice package called bindata (https://github.com/dmendel/bindata) that works well for this purpose.

For example, I enjoy sim racing, and some of my games provide a network API for things like telemetry data. So I wrote a simple telemetry logger that I use to gather data, which I then mess around with using R Studio. Ruby worked exceptionally well for this because of a cool little library called BinData.

These projects always remind me of binary formats. I've used bindata to work with binary formats coming from UDP streams over a network, and it's very handy to have a layer that encapsulates your expectations about the data you're receiving, combined with an exception handling apparatus.

This one file contains everything needed for this simplified app to run. Run it with ruby main.rb, which should spin up an instance of the Thin web server (the default web server that comes with Sinatra). Visit localhost:4567 and you'll see the JSON response.

The other major thing you'll run into is performance. WEBrick's HTTP parsing code may look hairy but it is fast. Mongrel was the first Ruby HTTP server to implement it's HTTP parser in C using Ragel, which Thin, Unicorn, and Puma all copied; although there's a bug in the original Mongrel HTTP parser where it does not combine the values duplicate HTTP headers (yes, HTTP Header names can actually be repeated).

Now let's run our application using a different server. We'll use Thin, a small, simple, and fast web server.