FRESH
Hacker News
Hacker News Hacker NewsI tried several implementations, tweaked settings, but ultimately couldn't get around it. In some cases I had bizarre drops in activity when the consumer was below capacity.
It could have been related to the other issue they mention, which is the cost of using promises. My streams were initiating HEAPS of promises. The cost is immense when you're operating on a ton of data.
Eventually I had to implement some complex logic to accomplish batching to reduce the number of promises, then figure out some clever concurrency strategies to manage backpressure more manually. It worked well.
Once I was happy with what I had, I ported it from Deno to Go and the result was so stunningly different. The performance improvement was several orders of magnitude.
I also built my custom/native solution using the Effect library, and although some people claim it's inefficient and slow, it out-performed mine by something like 15% off the shelf, with no fine-tuning or clever ideas. I wished I'd used it from the start.
The difference is likely in that it uses a fiber-based model rather than promises at the execution layer, but I'm not sure.
They propose just using an async iterator of UInt8Array. I almost like this idea, but it's not quite all the way there.
They propose this:
type Stream<T> = {
next(): Promise<{ done, value: UInt8Array<T> }>
}
type Stream<T> = {
next(): { done, value: T } | Promise<{ done, value: T }>
}
- I can easily make mine from theirs
- In theirs the conceptual "stream" is defined by an iterator of iterators, meaning you need a for loop of for loops to step through it. In mine it's just one iterator and it can be consumed with one for loop.
- I'm not limited to having only streams of integers, they are
- My way, if I define a sync transform over a sync input, the whole iteration can be sync making it possible to get and use the result in sync functions. This is huge as otherwise you have to write all the code twice: once with sync iterator and for loops and once with async iterators and for await loops.
- The problem with thrashing Promises when splitting input up into words goes away. With async iterators, creating two words means creating two promises. With stream iterators if you have the data available there's no need for promises at all, you just yield it.
- Stream iterators can help you manage concurrency, which is a huge thing that async iterators cannot do. Async iterators can't do this because if they see a promise they will always wait for it. That's the same as saying "if there is any concurrency, it will always be eliminated."
If you're dealing with small objects at the production side, like individual tag names, attributes, bindings, etc. during SSR., the natural thing to do is to just write() each string. But then you see that performance is terrible compared to sync iterables, and you face a choice:
1. Buffer to produce larger chunks and less stack switching. This is the exact same thing you need to do with Streams. or
2. Use sync iterables and forgo being able to support async components.
We faced this problem in Lit-SSR and our solution was to move to sync iterables that can contain thunks. If the producer needs to do something async it sends a thunk, and if the consumer receives a thunk it must call and await the thunk before getting the next value. If the consumer doesn't even support async values (like in a sync renderToString() context) then it can throw if it receives one.
This produced a 12-18x speedup in SSR benchmarks over components extracted from a real-world website.
I don't think a Streams API could adopt such a fragile contract (ie, you call next() too soon it will break), but having some kind of way where a consumer can pull as many values as possible in one microtask and then await only if an async value is encountered would be really valuable, IMO. Something like `write()` and `writeAsync()`.
The sad thing here is that generators are really the right shape for a lot of these streaming APIs that work over tree-like data, but generators are far too slow.
Ideally splitting out the use cases would allow both implementations to be simpler, but that ship has probably sailed.
That's an inherent flaw of garbage collected languages. Requiring to explicitly close a resource feels like writing C. Otherwise you have a memory leak or resource exhaustion, because the garbage collector may or may not free the resource. Even C++ is better at this, because it does reference counting instead.
import { Repeater } from "@repeaterjs/repeater";
const keys = new Repeater(async (push, stop) => {
const listener = (ev) => {
if (ev.key === "Escape") {
stop();
} else {
push(ev.key);
}
};
window.addEventListener("keyup", listener);
await stop;
window.removeEventListener("keyup", listener);
});
const konami = ["ArrowUp", "ArrowUp", "ArrowDown", "ArrowDown", "ArrowLeft", "ArrowRight", "ArrowLeft", "ArrowRight", "b", "a"];
(async function() {
let i = 0;
for await (const key of keys) {
if (key === konami[i]) {
i++;
} else {
i = 0;
}
if (i >= konami.length) {
console.log("KONAMI!!!");
break; // removes the keyup listener
}
}
})();
It’s one of those abstractions that’s feature complete and stable, and looking at NPM it’s apparently getting 6.5mil+ downloads a week for some reason.
Lately I’ve just taken the opposite view of the author, which is that we should just use streams, especially with how embedded they are in the `fetch` proposals and whatever. But the tee critique is devastating, so maybe the author is right. It’s exciting to see people are still thinking about this. I do think async iterables as the default abstraction is the way to go.
The async iterable approach makes so much more sense because it composes naturally with for-await-of and plays well with the rest of the async/await ecosystem. The current Web Streams API has this weird impedance mismatch where you end up wrapping everything in transform streams just to apply a simple operation.
Node's original stream implementation had problems too, but at least `.pipe()` was intuitive. You could chain operations and reason about backpressure without reading a spec. The Web Streams spec feels like it was written by the kind of person who thinks the solution to a complex problem is always more abstraction.
I'm working on a db driver that uses it by convention as part of connection/pool usage cleanup.
At a native level (C++/rust), a Promise is just a closure added to a list of callbacks for the event loop. Yes, if you did 1 per streamed byte then it would be huge but if you're doing 1 promise per megabyte, (1000 per gig), it really shouldn't add up 1% of perf.
the idea is basically just use functions. no classes and very little statefulness
> I'm not here to disparage the work that came before — I'm here to start a conversation about what can potentially come next.
Terrible LLM-slop style. Is Mr Snell letting an LLM write the article for him or has he just appropriated the style?
In an ideal world you could just ask the host to stream 100MB of stuff into a byte array or slice of the wasm heap. Alas.
Coalgebras might seem too academic but so were monads at some point and now they are everywhere.
https://github.com/ralusek/streamie
allows you to do things like
infiniteRecords
.map(item => doSomeAsyncThing(item), { concurrency: 5 });
infiniteRecords
.map(item => doSomeAsyncSingularThing(item), { concurrency: 5 })
.map(groupOf10 => doSomeBatchThing(groupsOf10), { batchSize: 10 })
// Can flatten back to single items
.map(item => backToSingleItem(item), { flatten: true });The objection is
> The Web streams spec requires promise creation at numerous points — often in hot paths and often invisible to users. Each read() call doesn't just return a promise; internally, the implementation creates additional promises for queue management, pull() coordination, and backpressure signaling.
But that's 95% manageable by altering buffer sizes.
And as for that last 5%....what are you doing with JS to begin with?
This is what UDP is for. Everything actually has to be async all the way down and since it’s not, we’ll just completely reimplement the OS and network on top of itself and hey maybe when we’re done with that we can do it a third time to have the cloud of clouds.
The entire stack we’re using right down to the hardware is not fit for purpose and we’re burning our talent and money building these ever more brittle towering abstractions.
Sadly it will never happen. WebAssembly failed to keep some of its promises here.