brownjohnf

> I think the point is just that for most applications, the reverse proxy server is not a performance bottleneck

I'm not commenting either way on Caddy vs. other solutions, but whether or not a reverse proxy is a pure performance bottleneck, it can become a cost issue. If a reverse proxy is capable of handling twice as much traffic as another solution (through some combination of simultaneous connections and raw speed), it'll cost half as much to operate. Especially at scale, those costs can really matter.

Raw speed for speed's sake is only sometimes the most important factor.

Edit: grammar.

> In safe languages like C# or Java there’s no unsafe anywhere, not even in standard libraries

My (limited) understanding of the unsafe keyword in rust is that it’s just indicating that the compiler cannot guarantee that the block is safe, not that it’s necessarily dangerous. By this standard, every single line of any C program is unsafe. Depending on the guarantees of other languages, this is true to varying degrees. I’m not familiar enough with Java and C# to comment on them specifically, but I’m not sure the try to provide the same guarantees that rust does.

I think all python, ruby, is, etc. would be considered unsafe. The unsafe keyword in rust seems more like the equivalent of saying “my static analyzer couldn’t guarantee the safety of this bit; it may or may not be totally fine”.

That said, I do agree that unsafe blocks can be red flags. At least they can help guide you in where to start looking for potential issues.

Yeah, probably should have clarified that I intended no comment on the OPs comment about innovation in computer UI. Just wanted to point out that there's actually a surprising amount of evolution in design of the hammer.

Something that seems to be so simple, and has existed for thousands of years, can still be made better. I'm not a professional carpenter, but I've used a hammer a lot to do things like framing, and can confirm that many of these innovations are meaningful in function, not just form.

I think the common terseness of many of the core suite of original unix tools actually reflects a strong focus on human, not machine, ergonomics. I still appreciate the speed and ease of typing them, and like many other aspects of the CLI, it's optimized for users who know it well and use it heavily. Once you're familiar with the names, it's not challenging to remove that mv = move, wc = wordcount, etc. Terminals of the era also still actually printed mechanically, so keeping command length short was a major ergonomic win for round trip speed.

As a sibling comment mentions, these commands were (are) commonly composed into scripts. As the name implies, however, a script is just a playbook for a series of commands to run. Given the terminals of the era, I'm sure short commands/variables/etc. were appreciated in scripts as well, but it seems to me that the primary motivation for optimizing input speed would be the use of these commands in an interactive environment.

A few examples of these core short program names: ls, cat, cp, rm, wc, uniq, cmp, diff, od, dd, tail, tr, etc.

I'm a backend developer at MobileDevHQ, and just checked our db. We're currently tracking 520,684 searches.