4 ms·
I for one do not get the hate, nobody needs to use/or-waste-time-commenting on this project if they have no need/want. However, I do agree that it needs some mo
by dingdingdang 16d ago
I for one do not get the hate, nobody needs to use/or-waste-time-commenting on this project if they have no need/want. However, I do agree that it needs some more contributors on-board alongside with a couple months more support and bug squashing. And yes: better rewrite that website without the clanger involved in the wording! ;)
On a positive note: the performance is genuinely impressive.. what does it take to unlock this performance if I'm NOT running one of the big "usual" frameworks? The devil is always in the detail, best get some practical advice up on exactly what needs to happen with a medium piece of custom code to get it to said max performance.
- bawolff 16d agoI was kind of wondering too. I assume this only works if you load a lot of classes before touching request specific variables. That might work for big framework, but you probably have to rewrite a lot if not using one. From a pragmatic perspective, its unclear to me how much this actually speeds things up. I would assume if using php you probably have complex logic and start up time is not dominating the runtime.
- sourthyme 16d agoI think we are all afraid that an LLM could generate a ridiculously fast webserver and be production viable. But I'm still glad we are taking this through the ringer.
- 0gs 16d agowhoa. is clanger:clanker::darn:damn? a softer touch. i like it ok ok, or "dang" (or did i mandela myself)
- 0gs 16d agodef tripped over those asterisks
- dingdingdang 14d agoYeah, gotta say clangers are softer* than clankers clearly. It was a slip but might adopt due to the plush connotations. As per one of the few, actually non-dangerous to children, children shows produced by the BBC in the 70s