fasthttp VS kawipiko

Someone made a benchmark of serialization libraries in go [1], and I was surprised to see gobs is one of the slowest ones, specially for decoding. I suspect part of the reason is that the API doesn't not allow reusing decoders [2]. From my explorations it seems like both JSON [3], message-pack [4] and CBOR [5] are better alternatives.

By the way, in Go there are a like a million JSON encoders because a lot of things in the std library are not really coded for maximum performance but more for easy of usage, it seems. Perhaps this is the right balance for certain things (ex: the http library, see [6]).

There are also a bunch of libraries that allow you to modify a JSON file "in place", without having to fully deserialize into structs (ex: GJSON/SJSON [7] [8]). This sounds very convenient and more efficient that fully de/serializing if we just need to change the data a little.

--

1: https://github.com/alecthomas/go_serialization_benchmarks

2: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/29766#issuecomment-45492...

--

3: https://github.com/goccy/go-json

4: https://github.com/vmihailenco/msgpack

5: https://github.com/fxamacker/cbor

--

6: https://github.com/valyala/fasthttp#faq

--

7: https://github.com/tidwall/gjson

8: https://github.com/tidwall/sjson

Fasthttp is one of the most powerful webservers written in Go, I'm working on a project that makes it possible to use it as a webserver for Python.

IDE: use whatever make you productive. I personally use vscode. VCS: git, as golang communities use github heavily as base for many libraries. AFAIK Linter: use staticcheck for linting as it looks like mostly used linting tool in go, supported by many also. In Vscode it will be recommended once you install go plugin. Libraries/Framework: actually the standard libraries already included many things you need, decent enough for your day-to-day development cycles(e.g. `net/http`). But here are things for extra: - Struct fields validator: validator - Http server lib: chi router , httprouter , fasthttp (for non standard http implementations, but fast) - Web Framework: echo , gin , fiber , beego , etc - Http client lib: most already covered by stdlib(net/http), so you rarely need extra lib for this, but if you really need some are: resty - CLI: cobra - Config: godotenv , viper - DB Drivers: sqlx , postgre , sqlite , mysql - nosql: redis , mongodb , elasticsearch - ORM: gorm , entgo , sqlc(codegen) - JS Transpiler: gopherjs - GUI: fyne - grpc: grpc - logging: zerolog - test: testify , gomock , dockertest - and many others you can find here

The best example I can give you is https://github.com/nutsdb/nutsdb it’s great project that got me started, one thing one should know is Go is different “yep” so there’re some coding habits that may bite you in Go and the Go compiler won’t correct you, you wanna learn about optimizations, unsafe usage check out https://github.com/valyala/fasthttp (note this is deep the rabbit hole), wanna learn concurrency check out ants https://github.com/panjf2000/ants with a little aid from “Go by example” you’re good to go

As I said in another comment, I think net/http is a good cautionary tale here. It was designed to be easy to use, and then grew organically, but performance never seems to have been a goal. fasthttp solves this, but bifurcates the ecosystem and passes on those costs to everyone who uses it. If net/http had been designed with performance in mind, this could have been avoided. net/http can't be removed or optimized, so this is a situation the Go ecosystem is effectively stuck with forever. At best, a faster version may end up in the std lib, just like netip is more modern and faster than net but the ecosystem is still bifurcated and adoption of the new package has been slow.

Fiber, while has a lot of batteries included and decent for many use cases, is known for having corner cases (because of internals like fasthttp) like https://github.com/valyala/fasthttp/issues/622

[the author here] Indeed didn't mention anything about the shared webhosting solutions, just as I didn't mention anything about S3 + CloudFront, or Backblaze B2 + a CDN in front, or Cloudflare + WebWorkers, or AWS Lambda, or any other thousand ways to do it... (Like for example there is <https://redbean.dev/> which I find just so intriguing, and not far from my own <https://github.com/volution/kawipiko> proposal.)

Although shared webhosting is part of our web history -- and still a viable choice especially if you have something in PHP or something that requires a little-bit of dynamic content -- I don't think it's still a common choice for today.

It's somewhere in between dedicated cloud-hosting, because although you have an actual HTTP server (usually Apache or Nginx) that you can't configure it much because it's managed by the provider, thus it gives you the same features (and limitations) as an a proper cloud-hosted static site solution (such as Netlify); and between self-hosting because of the same reasons, having an actual full-blown HTTP server, but one you can't fully control, thus it gives you fewer features than a self-managed VM in a cloud provider or self-hosted machine. Thus unless you need PHP, or `htaccess`, I think the other two alternatives make a better choice.

The issue with "static sites", due to the de-facto requirements in 2022 imposed by the the internet "gatekeepers" (mainly search engines), is that they aren't "just a bunch of files on disk that we can just serve with proper `Content-Type`, `Last-Modified` or `ETag`, and perhaps compressed"; we now need (in order to meet the latest hoops the gatekeepers want us to jump through) to also do a bunch of things that aren't quite possible (or certainly not easily) with current web servers. For example:

* minification (which I've cited in my article) -- besides compression, one should also employ HTML / CSS / JS and other asset minification; none of the classical web servers support this; there is something like <https://www.modpagespeed.com/>, but it's far from straightforward to deploy (let alone on a shared web-host;)

* when it comes to headers (be it the ones for CSP and other security related ones) or even `Link` headers for preloading, these aren't easy to configure, especially if you need those `Link` headers only for some HTML pages and not all resources; in this regard I don't know how many shared webhosts actually allow you to tinker with these;

The point I was trying to make is that if you want to deploy a professional (as in performant) static web site, just throwing some files in a folder and pointing Apache or Nginx at them isn't enough. If the performance you are getting by default from such a setup is enough for you, then perfect! If not there is a lot of pain getting everything to work properly.