.NET Runtime VS TypeORM

.NET has explicit tailcalls - they are heavily used by and were made for F#.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.reflecti...

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/feat...

The description indicates it is not production ready, and is archived at the same time.

If you pull all stops in each respective language, C# will always end up winning at parsing text as it offers C structs, pointers, zero-cost interop, Rust-style struct generics, cross-platform SIMD API and simply has better compiler. You can win back some performance in Go by writing hot parts in Go's ASM dialect at much greater effort for a specific platform.

For example, Go has to resort to this https://github.com/golang/go/blob/4ed358b57efdad9ed710be7f4f... in order to efficiently scan memory, while in C# you write the following once and it compiles to all supported ISAs with their respective SIMD instructions for a given vector width: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/56e67a7aacb8a644cc6b8... (there is a lot of code because C# covers much wider range of scenarios and does not accept sacrificing performance in odd lengths and edge cases, which Go does).

Another example is computing CRC32: you have to write ASM for Go https://github.com/golang/go/blob/4ed358b57efdad9ed710be7f4f..., in C# you simply write standard vectorized routine once https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/56e67a7aacb8a644cc6b8... (its codegen is competitive with hand-intrinsified C++ code).

There is a lot more of this. Performance and low-level primitives to achieve it have been an area of focus of .NET for a long time, so it is disheartening to see one tenth of effort in Go to receive so much spotlight.

It's an interesting "time is a circle" problem given that a century only has 100 years and then we loop around again. 2-digit years is convenient for people in many situations but they are very lossy, and horrible for machines.

It reminds me of this breaking change to .Net from last year.[1][2] Maybe AA just needs to update .Net which would pad them out until the 2050's when someone born in the 1950s would be having...exactly the same problem in the article. (It is configurable now so you could just keep pushing it each decade, until it wraps again).

Or they could use 4-digit years.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/75148

These can also be passed as arguments to `dotnet publish` if necessary.

Reference:

- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/coreclr/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/5b4e770daa190ce69f402... (full list of recognized keys for IlcInstructionSet)

Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].

Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.

* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)

If you care about portable SIMD and performance, you may want to save yourself trouble and skip to C# instead, it also has an extensive guide to using it: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/69110bfdcf5590db1d32c...

CoreLib and many new libraries are using it heavily to match performance of manually intensified C++ code.

DEBUG: packageFiles with updates (repository=local) "config": { "nuget": [ { "deps": [ { "datasource": "nuget", "depType": "nuget", "depName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "currentValue": "7.0.0", "updates": [ { "bucket": "non-major", "newVersion": "7.0.1", "newValue": "7.0.1", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-02-14T13:21:52.713Z", "newMajor": 7, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "patch", "branchName": "renovate/dotnet-monorepo" }, { "bucket": "major", "newVersion": "8.0.0", "newValue": "8.0.0", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-11-14T13:23:17.653Z", "newMajor": 8, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "major", "branchName": "renovate/major-dotnet-monorepo" } ], "packageName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "versioning": "nuget", "warnings": [], "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime", "registryUrl": "https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json", "homepage": "https://dot.net/", "currentVersion": "7.0.0", "isSingleVersion": true, "fixedVersion": "7.0.0" } ], "packageFile": "RenovateDemo.csproj" } ] }

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/59591

Support zstd Content-Encoding:

We might not be that far away already. There is this issue[1] on Github, where Microsoft and the community discuss some significant changes.

There is still a lot of questions unanswered, but initial tests look promising.

Ref: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620

If you use Sequalize, TypeORM or for MongoDB, we have Mongoose these types of ORM tools, then you are safe by default because these help us against the SQL query injection attacks by default.

We decided to use MySQL for a database. and TypeOrm for ORM. The ER diagram is provided below. For example, the task_assignments table holds information about user assignments to tasks. While in DDD, there is a pattern to design denormalized tables that reflect the structure of domain objects more directly, but this time, a more conventional table design was chosen. TypeOrm models:

How does this compare to using directly an ORM lib that supports browser like TypeORM [0] via SQL.js [1]?

[0] https://typeorm.io/

* Patch a third-party library that was setting an HTTP header to `null`. NodeJS handles this case just fine, but Deno throws an error [2].

After all of that work, I finally was able to use Deno in my project. It was really cool! Unfortunately, both VS Code and IntelliJ with Deno are essentially unusable [3]. Or, at least, unacceptably slow compared to what I had with NodeJS.

[0]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/66073607

[1]: https://github.com/typeorm/typeorm/issues/6123#issuecomment-...

[2]: https://github.com/Sansossio/twisted/issues/97

[3]: https://github.com/denoland/vscode_deno/issues/895

TypeORM is a very convenient ORM for JS apps. We use it with NestJS and running it on NodeJS.

We are going to start using TypeORM as an ORM to help us interact with Postgres, but we also have an example of using Prisma in the future and everything that we have to adapt to switch the ORMs if necessary. At the end we are implementing neon.tech as a production database, right? 😉

TypeORM is a popular Object-Relational Mapping (ORM) library for Node.js. It provides a high-level abstraction over relational databases, making it easy to perform CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) operations.

TypeORM places its focus on TypeScript and JavaScript (ES7+) development. It offers compatibility with various database systems, including MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, and MongoDB. What sets TypeORM apart is its robust integration with TypeScript. It provides a user-friendly experience with a convenient decorator-based syntax for defining entities and relationships. Additionally, TypeORM supports the repository pattern and enables eager loading, enhancing its versatility for developers.

ᴬ typeorm officially supports mssql@v9, but the support for the custom stream builder was added in mssql@v10. Since mssql is a peer dependency of typeorm, you can force override it and use the Cloud SQL Connector with typeorm. There is an open PR to add support for mssql@v10 in typeorm.