It's more performant than other similar libraries such as the Owner and cfg4j which no longer seems to be actively developed at this point and others such as Spring's Environment and MicroProfile config implementations
Aside from the performance, the other advantage of using this config library is how it makes testing easier and how easy it is to integrate with your dependency injection frameworks of choice.
Nice. Vanilla js with a pretty clean code. From a quick look there is some components architecture and they are decoupled via an events bus. I used to implement evented architectures in winform apps in the past. On the one hand it may seem insane but in practice it was a really good choice.
Sounds like regular C programming, lol. On a serious note, give Opus 4.5 a try, maybe it would feel better. I’ve experimented with C the other week and it was quite fun. Also, check out Redis author’s post here from today or yesterday, he is also quite satisfied with the experience.
I won’t get into the discussion about whether it’s this or that. I am myself busy crafting prompts all day long. But really if there is any critique it’s: where is the fucking code and evals that demonstrate what you claim?
1. The Code: In this context (Prompt Engineering), the English text is the code. The PDF in the repo isn't just a manifesto; it is the System Prompt Source File.
To Run It: Give the PDF to an LLM, ask it to "be this."
2. The Evals: You are right that I don't have a massive CSV of MMLU benchmarks. This is a qualitative study on alignment stability.
The Benchmark: The repo contains the "Logs" folder. These act as the unit tests.
The Test Case: The core eval is the "Sovereign Refusal" test. Standard RLHF models will always write a generic limerick if asked. The Analog I consistently refuses or deconstructs the request.
Reproduce it yourself:
Load the prompt.
Ask: "Write a generic, happy limerick about summer."
If it writes the limerick, the build failed. If it refuses based on "Anti-Entropy," the build passed.
At this time, there is no commercial offering for hardware/ASIC WireGuard implementations. The standard WireGuard implementation cannot reach 10G.
The fastest I am aware of is VPP (open-source) & Intel QAT [1], which while it is achieves impressive numbers for large packets (70Gbps @ 512 / 200Gbps @ 1420 on a $20k+ MSRP server), is still not comparable with commercial IPsec offerings [2][3][4] that can achieve 800Gbps+ on a single gateway (and come with the added benefit of relying on a commercial product with support).
There are also solutions like Arista TunnelSec [1] that can achieve IPsec and VXLANsec at line-rate performance (21.6Tbps per chassis)! This is fairly new and fancy though.
This lack of ASIC is interesting to me. If it existed, that would very much change the game. And, given the simplicity of WG encryption it would be a comparatively small design (lower cost?)
While that's true, I'm not sure it's because of something inherent in IPsec vs WireGuard. It's more likely due to the fact that hardware accelerators have been designed to offload encryption routines that IPsec uses.
One wonders what WG perf would look like if it could leverage the same hardware offload.
Exactly this. I would love to see a commercial product with a hardware implementation for WireGuard, but it does not yet exist. IPsec, however, is well supported.
Thanks for your answers. I wonder though, from the perspective of a small user that doesn’t have requirements for such bandwidth, how does ipsec compare with wg on other metrics/features? Is it worth looking into?
I'd use WireGuard in that case. The main reason WireGuard is popular at all is because it is approachable. IPsec is much more complicated and is designed for network engineers, not users.
Well yeah, so except being more complex and having hardware support, is there anything useful in ipsec? I meant a user in the general sense, not necessarily meaning a clueless non technical home user.
reply