quickserv VS mojo

> Zero external configuration, other than telling your webserver to enable CGI on your file

This is only true if you've done it before, and know what you're doing. In reality, it looks like a mess of `mod_cgi` configuration, trying different combinations of file permissions, finding the magic `cgi_bin` directory, finding the right obscure log files when there are inevitably errors, wrestling with CORS and other subtleties of HTTP headers, and other complexities that are only easy to navigate if you're already an experienced CGI user.

That being said, I love the philosophy of using CGI for scripts. Instead of using CGI itself, though, I wrote a (single-file, statically-linked) web server called "QuickServ" to bring this philosophy into the twenty-first century. It has all of the upside of CGI, but is much easier to set up and run, especially for beginners.

One of its benefits is that it automatically parses submitted HTTP forms, and converts the form fields to command line arguments. That means it's extremely easy to put existing CLIs on the web with minimal changes other than writing an HTML form front-end.

If you like CGI, I will (shamelessly) ask that you check it out!

https://github.com/jstrieb/quickserv

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29002694

This is awesome! This occupies a similar niche to—and might pair well with—my user friendly, single-binary webserver with CGI-like capabilities called QuickServ. When I released that here, one of the comments was that it would be nice to have WebSocket support. Now, I can just point people to this!

https://github.com/jstrieb/quickserv

https://github.com/modularml/mojo/blob/main/LICENSE Is this not it?

Interesting, but the intent seems similar to Chris Lattner's new Mojo language which arguably has similar characteristics and is further along in its development.

https://docs.modular.com/mojo/

Mojo is a programming language that combines the performance and control inherent in systems languages like C++ and Rust with the flexibility and simplicity of use typical of dynamic languages like Python. Because of its combination of performance, extensibility, and usability, its design makes it possible to construct high-performance systems, which makes it a good option for AI development.

If you take a look at the optimized Mojo code doing the matrix multiply [1], it takes an expert to understand. It’s not just some simple for-loops in Mojo they’re comparing against.

[1] https://github.com/modularml/mojo/blob/5ce18c47a27c0c4123de1...

Mojo truly unlocks a world of possibilities in high-performance computing.

For a concrete example of Liquid Haskell, see how Gabriella Gonzalez safely removed bound checks of high-performance protocol parsing, in "Scrap your Bounds Checks with Liquid Haskell" [1].

With Liquid Haskell, the bound checks are moved from runtime to compile time, semi-automatically handled by SMT-solvers. With static types, programmers can write correct programs faster, and the programs also run faster.

As an aside, speeding up programs with static analysis (constrained dynamism) are also present in Mojo (a variant of Python) or Swift [2].

[1]: https://github.com/Gabriella439/slides/blob/main/liquidhaske... "Scrap your Bounds Checks with Liquid Haskell"

[2]: https://github.com/modularml/mojo/discussions/466 "Mojo and Dynamism"