bandit VS purerl

I'd just mitigated this exact thing in Bandit last month!

https://github.com/mtrudel/bandit/blob/main/lib/bandit/http2...

TBH, from an implementors perspective this is a super obvious thing to cover off. It had long been on my radar and was something that I'd always figured other implementations had defended against as well.

[1] https://github.com/mtrudel/bandit/blob/main/lib/bandit/websocket/permessage_deflate.ex

Could even switch over to Bandit which was on a recent Thinking Elixir podcast

> In recent performance tests, Bandit's HTTP/1.x engine is up to 5x faster than Cowboy depending on the number of concurrent requests. When comparing HTTP/2 performance, Bandit is up to 2.3x faster than Cowboy

https://github.com/mtrudel/bandit

I will put in a good word for PureScript for the beam with `purerl`. It's my go-to for writing BEAM code nowadays. Notably PureScript tooling including LSP, package management, etc., just works, so you are able to just get to work in internalizing the way OTP and other Erlangy things are expressed in a statically typed, pure language.

https://github.com/purerl/purerl & https://purerl-cookbook.readthedocs.io/ for more information. Join the PureScript discord and the #purerl channel if you want help.

purerl is a compiler for turning PureScript code into Erlang code, so that you're able to write BEAM (the Erlang virtual machine) applications using it.

You've been able to write PureScript that compiles to Erlang and has perfect interop for years, via `purerl`[0]. Using it with Elixir is as simple as adding `purerlex` as a compiler and having your PureScript code automatically compile when `mix` compiles things, and off you go.

In terms of the typing itself, it's exactly what you get in all of PureScript, strict static typing with no `any` or the like. Using `Pinto`, the de facto OTP layer in PureScript your processes are typed, i.e. their `info` messages & state are typed, which means that they are all much more like strongly typed state machines than anything else.

You can see an example of a basic `gen_server` here:

https://pastebin.com/UTEfz7Wg

The differences aren't very big in terms of what you'd expect to be doing. One small thing to note is that the `GenServer.call` expects a closure to be passed instead of having the split between `gen_server:call` & `handle_call`, removing the need for synchronizing two places for your messages being sent and handled.

0 - https://github.com/purerl/purerl