supersnappy VS zippy

Another example of Nim being really fast is the supersnappy library. This library benchmarks faster than Google’s C or C++ Snappy implementation.

Nothing is without the cons. I would say:

* Libraries: there is no NPM ecosystem to get anything you need.

* Stack-overflow: If you looking for a aswers there might not be anyone who encounters it before. You might have to dig really deep to find some thing.

* Some times you might run into a compiler bug usually related with performance of the generated code. Like it generates correct code bug it's slow for no reason and minor changes to the code make it fast again.

* Relying on OpenSSL especially v3 especially on windows is a big problem, but thats more on openSSL i think. I actually wrote a library around this that uses platforms HTTP/SSL instead: https://github.com/treeform/puppy

* Not having HTTP gzip support in standard library. You can always work around with zippy though: https://github.com/guzba/zippy

* async stack traces are really hard to read.

* not enough docs around the different ways to do threading. There is no one solution some times you want a quick thing, some times you are doing CPU tasks other times you are doing network tasks (where async is better). But many big languages struggle here, there is no one fits all threading solution.

It's definitely not style case insensitivity which everyone loves to bike-shed about.

One last example of Nim’s performance is taking a look at zlib. It has been around for so long and is used everywhere. It has to be as fast as possible, right? After all it uses SIMD and is very tight and battle test code. Well, then the Zippy library gets written in Nim and mostly beats or ties with zlib!