ea-async VS FrameworkBenchmarks

I feel like this misses the reason I like extension methods: discoverability.

With an extension method, I can do `object.` and my IDE will tell me what can be called on object. With a static helper method, it isn't as easy to know what is available. I need to know which helpers actually exist.

Since this doesn't have IDE support, it doesn't help discoverability. I'm not going to get nice autocomplete that shows me what is available. In fact, my IDE is going to highlight it as a bug. If I have a spelling mistake, I won't be able to easily pick it up - I'll assume it's just the normal complaint for all of these fluent extension methods.

That makes this simply syntactic sugar rather than something that actually helps me discover things more easily. It then hurts readability and navigation since I can't easily click through to get the definition of the method.

On a more general note about Java, things like this are one of the reasons I don't love the Java ecosystem. People try to change the behavior of Java in really hacky ways that don't work well. I understand that it's an attempt to overcome shortcomings in the language, but when one looks other languages it becomes clear that Java could have just evolved the language to be better. Java has lots of good things and I'm not looking to argue that. However, when I look at things like this, it makes me think that Java needs to really address the core language.

Instead, we get lots of tools like this which might be nice, but make it really hard to understand what's going on. Electronic Arts created an async/await library that'll do crazy stuff to let you do async/await style programming (https://github.com/electronicarts/ea-async). Yes, Java is doing good things with structured concurrency and Project Loom, but the point is how people keep trying to work around the language. There are so many POJO generators it isn't funny: AutoValue, Immutables, JodaBeans, Lombok, and more I'm probably forgetting. Java records don't fulfill everything (and they're at least a decade late). Java doesn't support expression trees for lambdas so libraries sometimes do crazy hacky things to make that exist.

Java is a great piece of technology, but it feels like people are often trying to overcome issues with the language through really hacky means in a way that I don't see in other languages. Java is getting better about modernizing the language, but it still feels like people are running against the language more than in other ecosystems.

https://github.com/electronicarts/ea-async via preprocessing the bytecode in the jar or at start time

Like I mentioned in the other comment - EA Async can help there, it brings async-await semantics to CompletableFutures and resilience4j has CompletableFuture decorators that you can apply to get retries, circuit-breakers and all the good stuff they offer.

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.