After a year of using the uv HTTP server for production, the author found it performant and easy to integrate with existing C code, praising its small binary size, minimal dependencies, and speed. However, the project is relatively immature, leading to occasional bugs and missing features compared to more established servers like Nginx or Caddy. While documentation has improved, it still lacks depth. The author concludes that uv is a solid choice for projects prioritizing performance and tight C integration, especially when resources are constrained. However, those needing a feature-rich and stable solution might be better served by a more mature alternative. Ultimately, the decision to migrate depends on individual project needs and risk tolerance.
Jiga, a YC-backed startup (W21) building a B2B marketplace for industrial materials in Africa, is hiring full-stack engineers proficient in MongoDB, React, and Node.js. They're looking for individuals passionate about building a transformative product with significant real-world impact, comfortable working in a fast-paced environment, and eager to contribute to a rapidly growing company. Experience with Typescript and Next.js is a plus.
HN commenters discuss Jiga's unusual hiring approach, which emphasizes learning MongoDB, React, and Node.js after being hired. Some express skepticism, questioning the practicality of training experienced engineers in specific technologies and the potential for attracting less qualified candidates. Others are more optimistic, viewing it as a refreshing alternative to the overemphasis on specific tech stacks in typical job postings, potentially opening opportunities for talented individuals with strong fundamentals but lacking specific framework experience. The discussion also touches on the potential for lower salaries due to the training aspect and the overall cost-effectiveness of this hiring strategy for Jiga. Several commenters share personal anecdotes of successfully transitioning to new technologies on the job, suggesting that Jiga's approach could be viable.
Summary of Comments ( 335 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43095157
Hacker News users generally reacted positively to the author's experience with the
uvterminal multiplexer. Several commenters echoed the author's praise foruv's speed and responsiveness, particularly compared to alternatives liketmux. Some highlighted specific features they appreciated, such as the intuitive copy-paste functionality and the project's active development. A few users mentioned minor issues or missing features, like lack of support for nested sessions or certain keybindings, but these were generally framed as minor inconveniences rather than major drawbacks. Overall, the sentiment leaned towards recommendinguvas a strong contender in the terminal multiplexer space, especially for those prioritizing performance.The Hacker News post "A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate" discussing the blog post about the ultraviolet library for Crystal, has generated a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on comparisons with other asynchronous frameworks and specific features of UV.
Several commenters discuss UV's memory management, specifically mentioning its zero-cost abstractions and minimal overhead. One commenter appreciates UV's efficiency, contrasting it favorably with other asynchronous solutions that incur higher memory costs due to heap allocations. This thread touches on the advantages Crystal offers in general for memory management within asynchronous programming.
A significant portion of the discussion revolves around UV's suitability for different types of projects. One commenter questions its applicability in scenarios with a high volume of concurrent connections, while others affirm its effectiveness for their specific use cases. The thread delves into specific performance considerations, including the number of file descriptors and the potential overhead introduced by the event loop in highly concurrent environments.
Another point of discussion is the overall design of UV. A commenter praises its simple and straightforward API, drawing a comparison to the more complex nature of some alternative frameworks. This simplicity is seen as a key advantage, leading to easier code maintenance and debugging. This thread expands into the trade-offs between simplicity and feature richness, with some suggesting that UV's minimalist approach might limit its versatility in certain scenarios.
A few comments also touch upon the broader context of asynchronous programming in Crystal. One commenter raises concerns about the overall ecosystem and support available for asynchronous Crystal, wondering if UV might be too niche. Another commenter responds by pointing towards the active development and growing community around Crystal and its asynchronous tools.
Finally, a couple of comments mention specific technical details, such as UV's integration with the Crystal standard library and its handling of different types of I/O operations. These comments offer insights into more granular aspects of UV's implementation and how it interacts with the broader Crystal ecosystem.
While not an overwhelmingly active discussion, the comments on the Hacker News post provide valuable insights into the perceived strengths and weaknesses of UV, particularly regarding its performance characteristics, API design, and suitability for different project types. The discussion also touches upon the wider landscape of asynchronous programming in Crystal and the ongoing evolution of this ecosystem.