spring-fu VS Graal

The point isn't that one should reinvent the way that Tomcat is started, but that Spring Boot (by default) is using action at a distance and runtime reflection which have serious downsides if you want to understand what's actually going on because you're a) new to the technology, or b) have to debug some weird edge case.

The alternative is using explicit, reflection-less code - which you can do even with Spring, although it's experimental: https://github.com/spring-projects-experimental/spring-fu

Bean Definition -> Still needed although experimental projects like Spring Fu might remove their need in the future. Technically, there is nothing to stop you from registering beans functionally right now but the verbosity is likely to make that approach less optimal.

Most of these things can be done with higher-order functions too.

I think that if Java had had lambdas earlier, Spring and other such frameworks might look very different. You can see that already, Spring is adding (experimental?) support for more declarative styles of configuration instead of the rather slow and hard-to-debug reflection magic: https://github.com/spring-projects-experimental/spring-fu

Quarkus just moves the problem IMHO. I find it similarly convoluted to use as normal Spring. I had to deal with that a few months ago on a project. Honestly, it actually feels a lot like spring used to be; and not in a good way. Lots of annotation magic all over the place.

I use Spring Boot by default. But I aggressively limit the use of annotation magic. I've never liked the byte code hacks people do to make annotations inject magical behavior. Hard to debug and painful when it does not work as expected.

I don't think either of these frameworks have an edge over each other. You end up using a lot of the same underlying library ecosystem.

I do like the annotation less direction that Spring has been taking since they started adding Kotlin support 4-5 years ago. If you want to, you can get rid of most annotations for things like dependency injection, defining controllers, transactions etc.

Especially with Kotlin, this makes a lot of sense. With Java, dealing with builders is just a lot more painful without kotlin's DSL support. You basically end up with a lot of verbosity, method chaining, etc. But it's possible if you want to. It's a big reason, I prefer using Kotlin with Spring Boot. Makes the whole thing feel like a modern framework. The hard part with Spring Boot is being able to tell apart all the legacy and backwards compatible stuff from the actual current and proper way of doing things.

There's a project that they've been pushing to get rid of all annotations: https://github.com/spring-projects-experimental/spring-fu/tr.... I suspect a lot of that stuff might be part of spring boot 3.x later this year. And quite a bit of it is actually already part of the current version of Spring.

This makes spring boot very similar to what you'd do with ktor. All you do is call kotlin functions. No annotations. No reflection. No magic. Very little verbosity. It's all declarative. And a nice side effect is also that it makes things like spring-native easier, which they started supporting recently.

It's very similar to using ktor with koin (for dependency injection). That combination is worth a try if you are looking for something lightweight and easy to use. Spring Boot has more features and complexity but it can be as simple to use as that if you know what you are doing.

Mostly, keeping things simple is a good thing with Spring. Also, I don't tend to do everything the spring way. Spring integration is a bit of a double edged sword for example. It offers a subset of the features of the libraries that it integrates. If you want the full feature set, you end up working around that. IMHO, you should do that by default. I've removed spring integration from several projects.

> And that is a problem how? Stick to one style.

Switching an API from "a result or nothing" to "a result or an error message" happens all the time, and switching in the other direction is only slightly less frequent. And of course most programs have some APIs where one is appropriate and some where the other is. So consistency is valuable.

> https://github.com/spring-projects-experimental/spring-fu/tr...

Still reflection-based.

> There's nothing magical about it.

It's magical to anyone thinking in the language - it breaks the rules of the language, so you can't reason about what it does.

SpringFu (from Spring team): https://github.com/spring-projects-experimental/spring-fu/tree/main/jafu

It's mentioned in the article, even though the examples are written in Kotlin spring-fu supports a java-based dsl.

It's possible to remove it anyway, provided you accept to use APIs considered experimental. The solution is Spring Fu, with "Fu" standing for functional. It's available in two flavors, one for Java and one for Kotlin, respectively named JaFu and KoFu.

There is already a very close collaboration between Kotlin and Spring teams. I think leveraging more multiplatform capabilities and more DSL à la KoFu from https://github.com/spring-projects-experimental/spring-fu could increase Koltin usage on server side long term.

There's a next stage after annotations. The current thinking is to replace annotations with function calls. It makes more sense if you use Kotlin because Java is a bit verbose when you do this and in Kotlin you get to create nice DSLs. This cuts down on use of reflection and AOP magic that spring relies on and also enables native compilation. It also makes it easier to debug and it makes it much easier to understand what is going on at the price of surprisingly little verbosity. Kofu and Jafu are basically still experimental but work quite nicely https://github.com/spring-projects-experimental/spring-fu/tr...

Another trend is native compilation. Spring native just went into beta (uses the Graal compiler). That still relies on reflection but they re-engineered the internals to be more native friendly.

Spring Boot basically added the notion of autoconfiguring libraries that simply by being on the classpath self configure in a sane way. It's one of those things that makes the experience a bit more ruby on rails like. Stuff just works with minimal coding and you customise it as needed (or not, which is perfectly valid).

Compared to XML configuration, Spring has come a long way. Separating code and configuration is still a good idea with Spring but indeed not strictly enforced. @Configuration classes can take the place of XML and if you use the bean dsl, that's basically the equivalent of using XML. Only it's type checked at compile time and a bit more readable.

Contrary to what vocal Kotlin advocates might believe, Kotlin only matters on Android, and that is thanks to Google pushing it no matter what.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-top-programming-languages-2023

https://snyk.io/reports/jvm-ecosystem-report-2021/

And even so, they had to conceed Android and Kotlin on their own, without the Java ecosystem aren't really much useful, thus ART is now updatable via Play Store, and currently supports OpenJDK 17 LTS on Android 12 and later devices.

As for your question regarding numbers, mostly Java 74.6%, C++ 13.7%, on the OpenJDK, other JVM implementations differ, e.g. GraalVM is mostly Java 91.8%, C 3.6%.

https://github.com/openjdk/jdk

https://github.com/oracle/graal

Two examples from many others, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines

Pkl was built using the GraalVM Truffle framework. So it supports runtime compilation using Futurama Projections. We have been working with Apple on this for a while, and I am quite happy that we can finally read the sources!

https://github.com/oracle/graal/tree/master/truffle

Disclaimer: graalvm dev here.

That's pretty interesting. It's not as aggressive as Bee sounds, but the Espresso JVM is somewhat similar in concept. It's a full blown JVM written in Java with all the mod cons, which can either be compiled ahead of time down to memory-efficient native code giving something similar to a JVM written in C++, or run itself as a Java application on top of another JVM. In the latter mode it obviously doesn't achieve top-tier performance, but the advantage is you can easily hack on it using all the regular Java tools, including hotswapping using the debugger.

When run like this, the bytecode interpreter, runtime system and JIT compiler are all regular Java that can be debugged, edited, explored in the IDE, recompiled quickly and so on. Only the GC is provided by the host system. If you compile it to native code, the GC is also written in Java (with some special conventions to allow for convenient direct memory access).

What's most interesting is that Espresso isn't a direct translation of what a classical C++ VM would look like. It's built on the Truffle framework, so the code is extremely high level compared to traditional VM code. Details like how exactly transitions between the interpreter/compiled code happen, how you communicate pointer maps to the GC and so on are all abstracted away. You don't even have to invoke the JIT compiler manually, that's done for you too. The only code Espresso really needs is that which defines the semantics of the Java bytecode language and associated tools like the JDWP debugger protocol.

https://github.com/oracle/graal/tree/master/espresso

This design makes it easy to experiment with new VM features that would be too difficult or expensive to implement otherwise. For example it implements full hotswap capability that lets you arbitrarily redefine code and data on the fly. Espresso can also fully self-host recursively without limit, meaning you can achieve something like what's described in the paper by running Espresso on top of Espresso.

I'm also using GraalVM if that's of any help.

Quarkus is one of Java frameworks for microservices development and cloud-native deployment. It is developed as container-first stack and working with GraalVM and HotSpot virtual machines (VM).

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply DCEVM went poof, just that I was sad it didn't make it into OpenJDK so one need not do JDK silliness between the production one and the "debugging one" since my experience is that's an absolutely stellar way to produce Heisenbugs

And I'll be straight: Graal scares me 'cause Oracle but I just checked and it looks to the casual observer that it's straight-up GPLv2 now so maybe my fears need revisiting: https://github.com/oracle/graal/blob/vm-23.1.0/LICENSE

> to be compiled to a single executable is a strength that Java does not have

I think this is very outdated claim: https://www.graalvm.org/

https://github.com/oracle/graal/issues/7182