tower VS FrameworkBenchmarks

This question is partially inspired by this PR which is kinda trying to do the same thing.

dd-trace-layer is a middleware for sending Datadog's trace. It's based on Tower and OpenTelemetry Rust.

I'm pretty sure that GCP's APIs (unlike AWS, which uses Smithy for very genuinely, very good reason) are defined using Protobuf and can be communicated with over gRPC, which means that you don't need to bind via cxx to GCP's C++ APIs. Take a look at this example using Tonic. If you're to use Tonic, you'll also be able to use Tower's middleware (main crate, http-specific) to implement retries, timeouts, tracing, and all the other things you need to be production-ready.

#[derive(Clone)] struct MyMiddleware { inner: S, } impl Service> for MyMiddleware where S: Service, Response = Response> + Clone + Send + 'static, S::Future: Send + 'static, { type Response = S::Response; type Error = S::Error; type Future = BoxFuture<'static, Result>; fn poll_ready(&mut self, cx: &mut Context<'_>) -> Poll> { self.inner.poll_ready(cx) } fn call(&mut self, mut req: Request) -> Self::Future { println!("before"); // best practice is to clone the inner service like this // see https://github.com/tower-rs/tower/issues/547 for details let clone = self.inner.clone(); let mut inner = std::mem::replace(&mut self.inner, clone); Box::pin(async move { let res: Response = inner.call(req).await?; println!("after"); Ok(res) }) } } fn main() { let app = Router::new() .route("/", get(|| async { /* ... */ })) .layer(layer_fn(|inner| MyMiddleware { inner })); }

For this tutorial, we're going to use apalis to run cron jobs in an async context. We will also look at how to decorate our jobs with tower middleware allowing us to unlock features like retries, prometheus, sentry etc

So I have now had a look at Axum and think I will give it a try. In the readme in the repository it says something about tower or tower::Service and tonic, what exactly is that? I do not understand that yet.

Better compatibility with tower ecosystem.

ratpack is idealized in the simplicity of the sinatra (ruby) framework in its goal, and attempts to be an alternative to other async HTTP frameworks such as tower, warp, axum, and tide.

i would browse the standard library, tower, nom, or my own bitvec to see layout and trait/record separation. in particular, std::io and std::net may be of use: io::Read and io::Write are pervasive examples of implementing unixy file-descriptor-like behavior in the type system

We're not there yet. I keep an eye on Tower which looks promising to build on top of. And I keep an eye on MoonZoon (full stack framework, unashamedly opinionated!).

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.