JDBI VS FrameworkBenchmarks

While this may work for greenfield applications, I don't see this working well for preexisting schemas. From their getting started page: "Database fields are automatically created for any abstract getter methods", which definitely scares me away since they seem to be relying on automatic field type conversions.

I prefer to manage my schemas when I can and do type and DAO conversions via mapper classes in the very simple and elegant JDBI framework where you write SQL annotations above your DAO methods https://jdbi.org/#_declarative_api

JDBI does wonders for wonky old schemas you've inherited, since joins etc work out of the box (just throw them in your annotations!) The annotations can also link to .SQL files for the big hairy queries.

All these "do magic" frameworks (hibernate being one of the first) work in the simple cases but then fall apart whenever you need to do anything complex/not-prescribed. I end up having to dig into the internals of the framework to see what's going wrong which negates their whole value add.

> I've been doing ORM on Java since Hibernate was new, and it has always sucked.

Have you ever looked at something like myBatis? In particular, the XML mappers: https://mybatis.org/mybatis-3/dynamic-sql.html

Looking back, I actually quite liked it - you had conditionals and ability to build queries dynamically (including snippets, doing loops etc.), while still writing mostly SQL with a bit of XML DSL around it, which didn't suck as much as one might imagine. The only problem was that there was still writing some boilerplate, which I wasn't the biggest fan of.

Hibernate always felt like walking across a bridge that might collapse at any moment (one eager fetch away from killing the performance, or having some obscure issue related to the entity mappings), however I liked tooling that let you point towards your database and get a local set of entities mapped automatically, even though codegen also used to have some issues occasionally (e.g. date types).

That said, there's also projects like jOOQ which had a more code centric approach, although I recall it being slightly awkward to use in practice: https://www.jooq.org/ (and the autocomplete killed the performance in some IDEs because of all the possible method signatures)

More recently, when working on a Java project, I opted for JDBI3, which felt reasonably close to what you're describing, at the expense of not being able to build dynamic queries as easily, as it was with myBatis: https://jdbi.org/

That said, with the multi-line string support we have in Java now, it was rather pleasant regardless: https://blog.kronis.dev/tutorials/2-4-pidgeot-a-system-for-m...

I don't think there's a silver bullet out there, everything from lightweight ORMs, to heavy ORMs like Hibernate, or even writing pure SQL has drawbacks. You just have to make the tradeoffs that will see you being successful in your particular project.

I found JDBi[1] to be a really nice balance between ORM and raw SQL. It gives me the flexibility I need but takes care of a lot of the boilerplate. It's almost like a third category.

1. http://jdbi.org

You could use something like jdbi or mybatis. It's not as ugly as raw jdbc and easier to use without all of the gunk from an ORM like hibernate.

We use JDBI. Very simple and lightweight. It uses an object mapper not a full fledged ORM.

Alternatively there are... hybrid solutions like Kotlin's https://github.com/JetBrains/Exposed or https://jdbi.org/ that don't quite... do all the heavy lifting for querying but allow you to sorta stitch queries together manually.

As seems that Micronaut does not include anything similar by default, we use JDBI and that SQL to retrieve one random greeting from the greetings table.

Ah! E sobre o que eu usei no backend, alem de postgres e fly.io, o backend eh eh Java, usando um framework chamado quarkus e jdbi pra fazer a interface com o banco.

More personally, I'm not much an ORM guy. I've just never found that the benefits outweigh the costs, but that's just my opinion. That said, I don't use JDBC directly in my own projects anymore, strongly preferring to use JDBI instead. I find that it walks the line between "make using the database easier" and "get between you and the database" beautifully. But there's not a darn thing wrong with using JDBC directly.

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.