uWebSockets.js

I came across this interesting rant the other day: https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js/blob/master/mi... It does make sense that the right way would be to fork every dependency you use and install from your own repo reviewing and merging from upstream as needed. Would be a giant PITA though. :)

Interesting that https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js (which is C++ with node bindings) outperforms the raw C++ uWebSockets implementation. It's also interesting that https://github.com/websockets/ws does not appear in this study, given that in the node ecosystem it is ~3x more likely to be used (not a perfect measurement but ws has 28k github stars vs uWebSockets 8k stars)

not gp bot first time seeing this encore ts. i've been a user of uwebsockets.js, uwebsockets is used underneath by bun. i hope encore does benchmark compared to encore, uwsjs, bun, and fastify. express is just so damn slow. https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js

Just go to its repo https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js and see the uWebSockets submodule dependency that it's written in C++ (90.9%) and C (6.8%)...so sure, a "fair" comparison indeed with vanilla implementation!

Just use uWebSockets.js[1] in node, and you'll leave Deno in the dust again. (uws is also what's under the hood in bun) https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js

have you tried https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js/

but the blog post says different. > The client side has similar settings but does not need to set up multiple IP addresses, obviously Also as I know, Linux will only use one IP for outbound connections, unless forcefully bind to another IP address in the code. The server only uses only one port. 9001 according to the code. https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js/blob/875f16e1f... This blog post does not make any sense.

If you look at that blog post he posted benchmarks (again without posting the source or methodology) and be compared Deno vs Node vs uWebsockets.js which is just a small C library with a thin JS layer on top. It seems like they are promoting their own library and doing a bit of their own deception by including a small library in their tests. Particularly a library that was designed entirely to perform well at that particular usecase (high throughout for small bits of data). https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js

> Written on top of C, ported to Node.js. I think what they mean is it uses uWebSockets.js, a Node.js module wrapping a C++ implementation. https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js

Lots of reasons: - Code cleanliness: their code almost looks like code golfing. Hard to debug. - Dependencies: everyone has different ways of implementing everything. some are even outdated. some even have stale bots that close legitimate but unattended issues. - Performance: fastify and uWebSockets.js beats express.js on benchmarks. see https://www.fastify.io/benchmarks/ and https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets/tree/master/bench... - Multi-part parsing: this is built-in with uWebSockets.js. on express your options are multer or busboy. - WebSocket Server support: this is built-in with uWebSockets.js. on express your options are using ws and socket.io. - WebSocket pub/sub: built-in with uWebSockets.js There are better alternatives like the following: - https://www.fastify.io/ - https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js - https:/

Nest.js uses express.js and socket.io underneath. uWebSockets.js beats both on performance benchmarks. In fact it beats everything based on Node's built-in http module, such as fastify, hapi, koa. https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js

https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js seems more popular in the crypto world.

I think you're right. Here's a project proving the exact opposite of native bindings being slow - https://github.com/uNetworking/uWebSockets.js