Checker Framework VS FrameworkBenchmarks

It is interesting! I experimented with creating a bad borrow checker for Java using annotations from

https://checkerframework.org/

It supports some level of substructural types using must-call annotations,

https://checkerframework.org/manual/#resource-leak-checker

Lombok is not a compiler extension. Compiler extensions, aka annotation processors, are offered only specific capabilities that ensure that they preserve the Java language specification. Particularly, code that compiles successfully with an extension also compiles without it (perhaps requiring other classes to be available) and it compiles down to the same bytecode. Annotation processors are used to implement pluggable type systems (e.g. https://checkerframework.org) or to generate other classes (e.g. https://immutables.github.io/).

Unlike compiler extensions, Lombok compiles source files that do not conform to the Java language specification. Lombok is an alternative Java Platform language, like Clojure or Kotlin or Scala, except that it's a superset of the Java language. However, rather than forking `javac` source code and modifying it to compile Lombok source files, the Lombok compiler modifies `javac`'s operation by hacking into its internals and modifying them as it runs to compile Lombok sources rather than Java sources.

Having alternative Java Platform languages is perfectly fine. The problem with Lombok is that it doesn't present itself as such but as a library or a compiler extension even though it violates the Java language specification in ways that compiler extensions are forbidden from doing.

And then I found (thanks Oracle), https://checkerframework.org/ zomg, this thing is awesome. Pluggable Type Systems!

Java should adopt something like the Checker Framework Nullness Checker in its first-party tooling.

https://github.com/typetools/checker-framework

And modern (real, non-android) Java via project amber and so on has gone more and more quasi functional with its immutability and sealed and record types for effective sum types, as well as its pretty cool type-use annotation extensible static type checks.

Checkerframework - a really academic take, and as one might expect from such a thing, backed by tons of papers and analysed to perfection. Specifically, this is the only framework I'm aware of that realizes nullity is a little more complicated than just a boolean yes-or-no; just like generics actually have 4 flavours for any given type: List, List, List, and List are all 4 important and unique, and nullity is no different. Specifically, it can occur that you want to write a method that ought to accept both lists of nullable strings as well as list of nonnull strings, and needs to 'convey' this nullity again on its output. You can either attempt to lift along the existing generics system in java which I think is your intent, but it's not actually all that easy to do this. After all, T extends @Nullable Number super @NonNull Number, or whatnot, isn't legal java. So you.. really just can't do that. Checker Framework solves this problem by introducing the @PolyNull annotation, which still isn't perfect but covers almost all real world use cases you can think of. I'm missing any acknowledgement in your documentation. An oversight, or, something you hadn't thought of yet? You're in good company: Both eclipse and intellij's engineers, when I asked them about it, just hadn't realized it was a thing. Point is: If you think the primary problem with e.g. eclipse's and intellij's take is that they lack academic rigour - checkerframework has you beat.

NullAway or the Checker Framework should greatly help eliminate the issue. Also, when Java gets value types you should be able to define your own non nullable value types and use them safely.

There are a lot of existing libraries for type checking modules. For example the Checker Framework created by University of Washington. This framework includes a NonNull module, as well as regular expression module and a mutex lock module. See this for more information.

Neat. Thanks for sharing!

Interestingly, may-minihttp is faring very well in the TechEmpower benchmark [1], for whatever those benchmarks are worth. The code is also surprisingly straightforward [2].

[1] https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/

[2] https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...

ntex was formed after a schism in actix-web and Rust safety/unsafety, with ntex allowing more unsafe code for better performance.

ntex is at the top of the TechEmpower benchmarks, although those benchmarks are not apples-to-apples since each uses its own tricks: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=fortune&s...

Ruby is slow. Very slow. How much you may ask? https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=fortune&s... fastest Ruby entry is at 272th place. Sure, top entries tend to have questionable benchmark-golfing implementations, but it gives you a good primer on the overhead imposed by Ruby.

It is also not early 00s anymore, when you pick an interpreted language, you are not getting "better productivity and tooling". In fact, most interpreted languages lag behind other major languages significantly in the form of JS/TS, Python and Ruby suffering from different woes when it comes to package management and publishing. I would say only TS/JS manages to stand apart with being tolerable, and Python sometimes too by a virtue of its popularity and the amount of information out there whenever you need to troubleshoot.

If you liked Go but felt it being a too verbose to your liking, give .NET a try. I am advocating for it here on HN mostly for fun but it is, in fact, highly underappreciated, considered unsexy and boring while it's anything but after a complete change of trajectory in the last 3-5 years. It is actually the* stack people secretly want but simply don't know about because it is bundled together with Java in the public perception.

*productive CLI tooling, high performance, works well in a really wide range of workloads from low to high level, by far the best ORM across all languages and back-end framework that is easier to work with than Node.JS while consuming 0.1x resources

Although that seems to have improved in recent years.

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=json§...

RoR and whatever C++ based web backend there is count as a valid comparison in my book. But comparing the languages itself is maybe a bit off.

On a side note, you can actually compare their performance here if you’re really curious. But take it with a grain of salt since these are synthetic benchmarks.

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks

Most benchmarks you'll find essentially have someone's thumb on the scale (intentionally or unintentionally). Most people won't know the different languages well enough to create comparable implementations and if you let different people create the implementations, cheating happens. The TechEmpower benchmarks aren't bad, but many implementations put their thumb on the scale (https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks). For example, a lot of the Go implementations avoid the GC by pre-allocating/reusing structs or allocate arrays knowing how big they need to be in advance (despite that being against the rules). At some point, it becomes "how many features have you turned off." Some Go http routers (like fasthttp and those built off it like Atreugo and Fiber) aren't actually correct and a lot of people in the Go community discourage their use, but they certainly top the benchmarks. Gin and Echo are usually the ones that are well-respected in the Go community.

There is certainly a lot of speculation in Techempower benchmarks and top entries can utilize questionable techniques like simply writing a byte array literal to output stream instead of constructing a response, or (in the past) DB query coalescing to work around inherent limitations of the DB in case of Fortunes or DB quries.

And yet, the fastest Ruby entry is at 274th place while Rails is at 427th.

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=fortune&s...

oh what machine? with how many workers? doing what?

search for "node" on this page: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r21

JustJS would like a word https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r20&tes...

In terms of RPS, this web service is more-or-less the fortunes benchmark in the techempower benchmarks, once the data hits the cache: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r21

Or, at least, they would be after applying optimizations to them.

In short, both of these would serve more rps than you will likely ever need on even the lowest end virtual machines. The underlying API provider will probably cut you off from querying them before you run out of RPS.