pidove VS FrameworkBenchmarks

Streams is too complex for what it does and it doesn’t even parallelize well. Here is something that does roughly the same thing but I think is way better

See https://github.com/paulhoule/pidove

https://central.sonatype.com/artifact/com.ontology2/pidove

(1) It's a bit of a bad smell (which he points out) that records aren't being used much at all in the Java stdlib, I wrote something that built out stubs for the 17 and 18 stdlibs and that stood out like a sore thumb. I do like using records though.

(2) I've looked at other ways to extend the collections API and related things, see

https://github.com/paulhoule/pidove

and I think the sequenced collections could have been done better.

(3) Virtual Threads are kinda cool but overrated. Real Threads in Java are already one of the wonders of the web and perform really well for most applications. The cases where Virtual Threads are really a win will be unusual but probably important for somebody. It's a good thing it sticks to the threads API as well as it did because I know in the next five years I'm going to find some case where somebody used Virtual Threads because they thought it was cool and I'll have to switch to Real Threads but won't have a hard time doing so.

I think that guy just made up a generator class for fun. It’s not too different from the integrator except it doesn’t have a hasNext() method so it either returns results forever or it has to return a sentinel value like null or return an exception to end iteration.

Somebody could make the case that returning a sentinel value or an exception is a better API since there is no risk somebody else is going to call the next() method after you call hasNext() and next(). Writing a generator that wraps a generator is a little simpler than writing an interest or that wraps an iteration because you don’t have to write a hasNext() function, which can occasionally be awkward.

That generator library has a few functions, like map that work on generators, unfortunately the Java stdlib doesn’t come with anything like that. (There is the streams API but it is over-complicated.)

I’ll point out this library I wrote

https://github.com/paulhoule/pidove

which does a lot of what the Steams library does but it works on iterators without creating streams. If you like those generator examples you might like pidove.

As for Python it is kinda accidental that generators would up related to coroutines, that is, generators were an easy way to implement coroutines, later async/await and stuff like that got added.

I find this alien to my point of view. On the other hand, my side projects aren't driven by FOMO but are more like the "special interests" of autistic people.

Most of the time I have three side projects going on, maybe two of which are really getting the attention they deserve and one that is languishing. (See my profile to see about my current three.) Occasionally I get inspired to spend 1-4 weekends on some sudden inspiration, of which

https://github.com/paulhoule/pidove

came to completion but

https://github.com/paulhoule/ferocity

probably won't. The project I'm working the hardest on now is something that I was baffled that it didn't exist 18 years ago but felt compelled to do something out because of the Twitterinsanity last December and it turned out the technological conditions right now make it the perfect time to work on.

When I saw sequenced collections earlier I didn’t like the design but I completely approve of the latest revision. One nice thing about the process they use to develop Java is that they really do work and rework new features to make them great.

I just wish that instead of Streams they’d made something more like

https://github.com/paulhoule/pidove

... or you can just use a sane FP library like

https://github.com/paulhoule/pidove

Some people don't like the Lispy signatures so I did start coding up a version with with a fluent interface but didn't quite finish.

Inner classes are pretty useful.

This library contains a huge number of Iterables, each of which has at least one Iterator implementation.

https://github.com/paulhoule/pidove

It is convenient to let the Iterator be immutable and the Iterator be an inner class that gets its configuration information out of the Iterable.

(That said, if people really thought seriously about Iterator being a Supplier people might think more rationally about error handling. Also in a slightly parallel universe the Iterator would only have one method since remove() hardly ever gets used and having both hasNext() and next() methods is asking for bugs.)

If you were programming in Python or many other languages you could download documentation locally.

In both Python and Java doing a mini-project I frequently challenge myself to only use the standard library. It's good for practicing HackerRank-rank style programming (the fun of single-file Java)

When I am waiting for builds I sometimes hack on this

https://github.com/paulhoule/pidove

because I don't really like the Streams API and want to perfect my mastery of generics and internal DSLs.

Now that I think of it, standard-library only for node seems like a good challenge for me because I code a lot of front-end Javascript but just barely know the node API.

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.