Swoole VS FrameworkBenchmarks

Swoole

It's a management UI where concerns were raised that it downloads from third party server. However this issue was handled very fast and code was removed: https://github.com/swoole/swoole-src/issues/4434

The contribution log of the original swoole seems to be active: https://github.com/swoole/swoole-src/graphs/contributors

FOMO is created by Iranian developer amirfaramarzi. This framework sits on top of the asynchronous event driven framework swoole that creates insane levels of performance out of apps (we're talking Go/Rust level of performance)! Check out the performance on the Web Frameworks Benchmark.

> I tend to install FOSS because imo they are more "future-proof", but some of them are developed by companies (e.g., Fedora Linux) and that makes me wonder if they're truly future-proof.

The story of CentOS should be telling that, no, many pieces of software that are backed by a company will not be future-proof and will probably experience certain changes as a consequence of that, be it being transformed to better fit corporate goals (CentOS Stream), or being retired eventually so the company may focus on something else (Atom), or will just be left to slowly rot over time as happens with most code (OpenOffice).

Then again, it's not like open source projects are that future proof or safe from "drama" either - for example, the Lubuntu project has 2 homepages for no reason: the official one at https://lubuntu.me/ and some other one that serves old versions and is not trusted by my ad blocking solution https://lubuntu.net/

There are also cases, when open source projects experience fragmentation like happened with Gogs https://gogs.io/ and Gitea https://gitea.io/en-us/ and sometimes there are cases where particular individuals simply cannot work together and as a consequence pretty much the same happens, as was the case with Swoole and Open Swoole: https://github.com/swoole/swoole-src/issues/4434

Treat most pieces of software that you use as if they might not be there in a year.

It's known by devs, it's simple, it's getting updates... I like PHP. Sure it has downsides but what doesn't. Oh, and with Swoole, even performance is bumped.

To allow for synchronous execution and prioritize speed, we decided to depart from the task-based system that most of our workers use and instead create a new component to Appwrite called the executor. The executor would handle all orchestration and execution responsibilities and remove the Docker socket from the functions worker. The executor is an HTTP Server built with Swoole and Utopia using various Appwrite libraries to interact with the database.

Swoole will be shipping something really-really cool that is it's own CLI. You can checkout the development at https://github.com/swoole/swoole-cli and you can start playing with it using the pre-compiled binary distributed under Swoole's releases at https://github.com/swoole/swoole-src/releases/tag/v4.8.7.

It's been around for more then 8 years. Its a very established project with more the 17k stars https://github.com/swoole/swoole-src

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.