Removed rust to gain speed
54 points
by 2233
4 days ago
| 7 comments
| prisma.io
| HN
ameliaquining
3 hours ago
[-]
An important part of the story here, not mentioned in this post but noted elsewhere (https://www.prisma.io/blog/from-rust-to-typescript-a-new-cha...), is that they gave up on offering client libraries for languages other than JavaScript/TypeScript. Doing this while mostly sharing a single implementation among all languages was much of the original reason to use Rust, because Rust is a good "lowest common denominator" language for FFI and TypeScript is not; it wasn't entirely about performance. If they hadn't tried to do this, they would likely never have used Rust; if they hadn't given up on it, they would likely still be using Rust.
reply
anon-3988
3 minutes ago
[-]
I claim that 99.9999% of software should be written in a GC language. Very, very, very few problems actually requires memory management. It is simply not part of the business requirement. That said, how come the only language closest to this criteria is Go except it hasn't learn about clean water (algebraic data types).
reply
mwkaufma
1 minute ago
[-]
Games are 0.00001% of software? Web browsers? Operating systems?
reply
hresvelgr
3 hours ago
[-]
I'm sure you could get even greater speed by removing Prisma. All you need is a migration tool and a database connection. Most recent example in my work where we removed an ORM resulted in all of our engineers, particularly juniors becoming Postgres wizards.
reply
AnotherGoodName
9 minutes ago
[-]
Using an ORM and escape hatching to raw SQL is pretty much industry standard practice these days and definitely better than no ORM imho. I have code that's basically a lot of

    result = orm.query({raw sql}, parameters)

It's as optimal as any other raw SQL query. Now that may make some people scream "why use an ORM at all then!!!" but in the meantime;

I have wonderful and trivially configurable db connection state management

I have the ability to do things really simply when i want to; i still can use the ORM magic for quick prototyping or when i know the query is actually trivial object fetching.

The result passing into an object that matches the result of the query is definitely nicer with a good ORM library than every raw SQL library i've used.

reply
PaulRobinson
40 minutes ago
[-]
Congratulations, you have now increased the cognitive load to be productive on your team and increased the SQL injection attack surface for your apps!

I jest, but ORMs exist for a reason. And if I were a new senior or principal on your team I’d be worried that there was now an expectation for a junior to be a wizard at anything, even more so that thing being a rich and complex RDBMS toolchain that has more potential guns pointing at feet than anything else in the stack.

I spent many years cutting Rails apps and while ActiveRecord was rarely my favourite part of those apps, it gave us so much batteries included functionality, we just realised it was best to embrace it. If AR was slow or we had to jump through hoops, that suggested the data model was wrong, not that we should dump AR - we’d go apply some DDD and CQRS style thinking and consider a view model and how to populate it asynchronously.

reply
baranul
4 days ago
[-]
This is a decent example of not buying, getting pulled, or being forced into any corporate pushed hype or eliminating one's options. They re-evaluated and looked at what programming language was best for their situation, which was removing the Rust language and using something else. It then turned out, they actually got gains in greater user contributions, simplicity, efficiency, and even speed.
reply
nine_k
4 hours ago
[-]
> what programming language was best for their situation, which was removing the Rust language and using something else

This is correct, but I'd say that the key was removing Rust and not using something else. Fewer moving parts, fewer JS runtime boundaries to cross, no need to make certain that the GC won't interfere, etc.

Also, basically any rewrite is a chance to drop entrenched decisions that proved to be not as great. Rewriting a large enough part of Prisma likely allowed to address quite a few pieces of tech debt which were not comfortable to address in small incremental changes. Consider "Prisma requires ~98% fewer types to evaluate a schema. Prisma requires ~45% fewer types for query evaluation.": this mush have required quite a bit of rework of the whole thing. Removing Rust in the process was likely almost a footnote.

reply
thunky
4 hours ago
[-]
> This is a decent example of not buying, getting pulled, or being forced into any corporate pushed hype

It seems that maybe they did get hyped into Rust, because it's not clear why they believed Rust would make their JavaScript tool easier to develop, simpler, or more efficient in the first place.

reply
solidsnack9000
1 hour ago
[-]
At one time, they were targeting much a broader array of languages -- it wasn't specifically a JavaScript tool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zSh0zYLTIE

reply
satvikpendem
3 hours ago
[-]
There are examples where that's true, like Biome or oxc.
reply
koakuma-chan
2 hours ago
[-]
Biome and oxc are developer tools. I don't know why in the world they would do this, but it sounds like they were using Rust at runtime to interact with the database?
reply
ckwalsh
3 hours ago
[-]
I'm in the "Pro-Rust" camp (not fanboy level "everything must be rewritten in rust", but "the world would be a better place if more stuff used Rust"), and I love this post.

They saw some benefits to Rust, tried it, and continued to measure. They identified the Typescript/Rust language boundary was slow, and noticed an effect on their contributions. After further research, they realized there was a faster way that didn't need the Rust dependency.

Good stuff, good explanation!

reply
burnt-resistor
16 minutes ago
[-]
> I'm in the "Pro-Rust" camp (not fanboy level "everything must be rewritten in rust", but "the world would be a better place if more stuff used Rust")

While techno-religiosity is irrational and unprofessional, but that's some weak, eye-rolling both-sidesism.

The world would be a better place™ if more stuff used better and more formal tools and methods to prove that code is correct and bug-free. This is easier in some languages than others, but still, there's a lot of formal verification tools that aren't used enough and methodology patterns and attitudes that are missing from crucial projects and regular use. Effective safety and security assurance of software creation takes effort and understanding that a huge fraction of programmer non-software engineers don't want to undertake or know anything about. This needs to change and is defensible, marketable expertise that needs to be appreciated and cannot be replaced by AI anytime soon. There's no "easy" button, but there are a lot of "lazy" "buttons" that don't function as intended.

reply
quotemstr
3 hours ago
[-]
Good. Rust is fine, but it makes you pay a complexity tax for manual memory management that you just don't need most of the time. In almost all real world cases, a GC is fine. TypeScript is a memory-safe language, just like Rust, and I can't imagine a database ORM of all things needing manual memory management to get good performance. (Talking to the database, not memory management, is the bottleneck!)
reply
amluto
2 hours ago
[-]
I don’t think the problems they were dealing with had much to do with any of those properties of Rust. Their issue seems to have been that they weren’t using native JavaScript/TypeScript and that their situation was improved by using native TypeScript.

If they had been using something like Java or Go or Haskell, etc, they may well have had even more downsides.

reply
theusus
2 hours ago
[-]
> manual memory management

Rust has automatic memory management.

> Complexity tax

Could you be more specific?

reply
honeycrispy
1 hour ago
[-]
The trait/type system can get pretty complex. Advanced Rust doesn't inherit like typical OOP, you build on generics with trait constraints, and that is a much more complex and unusual thing to model in the mind. Granted you get used to it.
reply
burnt-resistor
25 minutes ago
[-]
OOP inheritance is an anti-pattern and hype train of the 90's/00's, especially multiple inheritance. Especially the codebases where they create extremely verbose factories and abstract classes for every damn thing ... Java, C++, and the Hack (PHP-kind) shop are frequently guilty of this.

Duck typing and selective traits/protocols are the way to go™. Go, Rust, Erlang+Elixir... they're sane.

What I don't like about Rust is the inability to override blanket trait implementations, and the inability to provide multiple, very narrow, semi-blanket implementations.

Finally: People who can't/don't want to learn multiple programming language platform paradigms probably should turn in their professional software engineer cards. ;)

reply
quotemstr
1 hour ago
[-]
> Rust has automatic memory management

Sure, if you define "automatic memory management" in a bespoke way.

> Could you be more specific?

The lifetime system, one of the most complex and challenging parts of the Rust programming model, exists only so that Rust can combine manual memory management with memory safety. Relax the requirement to manage memory manually and you can safely delete lifetimes and end up with a much simpler language.

Have you ever written a Java or Python program?

reply
cyberax
4 hours ago
[-]
PSA: detached floating panels are pure cancer. Avoid them.

I literally can't scroll through your website.

reply
jibal
3 hours ago
[-]
So tell them ... posting it here is useless; the article was written a couple of weeks ago and they may not even know that it made it to HN.
reply