Everything the post mentions is 100% true and well-reasoned, especially with the inclusion of pledge/chroot/etc. for dropping privileges.
There's two diametrically opposed deployment mechanisms:
1) stack towers of glop on top of each other until you're running a simple `echo "hello world"` on top of a docker container inside a vm in a proxmox server as part of a k8s cluster under a hypervisor running on remote compute...
2) just run `bash -c 'echo "hello world"'` and front it with CGI (stateless, single binary, yada yada yada...)
Take a peek at https://github.com/Domain/bash.cgi ... not that i'm suggesting that 'bash over busybox using cgi-bin' is the "proper architecture", it's more trying to illustrate that the amount of code that holds you back from being nearly truly "frameworkless" is tiny and easy to reason about.
For some of the internal tooling I'm doing for work, I've been tending towards:
some-cmd [--json|--markdown] ...yet-more-args...
When you use the process and shell environment itself as a repl, you start trending towards `[--cgi-bin]` would "just" be another output type, and the ability (nay: foresight!) to ensure that your commands are independent, reproducible, and only depend on their input arguments leads you directly towards being runnable in both "hostile" (ie: firecracker vm / lambda-style) or very "comfortable" environments (ie: shell, debuggers, unit/integration tests).
Mirrors my experience, and it's funny you mention busybox: I just discovered busybox's ability to serve via `busybox httpd -p 9000 -h . -f -v` with a `cgi-bin` folder dropped in the current directory.
I already write Python services using Bottle that function both as a standalone server and as a CGI script, and I've been updating them to work with busybox's more constrained CGI environment (basically being able to handle the lack of .htaccess rewrite rules).
I definitely see a chance for simple deployment tools to make a resurgence as we create more one-off/disposable/personal software, and the low system requirements for something like busybox + lua stack are extremely minimal, which fits well with the current DDR4-is-good-enough zeitgeist. I'm running them on an old Raspberry Pi 2B and it's plenty performant for the ~10 people that access it regularly.
Event driven, fast, all the networking basics in place including http, mustache templates and encryption, light and small executable, very nice for embedded applications, signals and fd handling built-in, very easy to use…
Have used it very successfully for million-dollar projects, including some scientific applications running on limited-resource systems (512 megs of RAM) ..
Was very, very easy to add C functions to interface with the web front-end, libffi is great for this purpose, but its also very easy to extend as a standard, well-written Lua/C application ..
This is exactly the sort of thing I'm really interested in. I'm particularly excited about various takes on Lua+batteries, have looked into designing my own (C wrapper with bindings to networking, JSON, templating, and DB libraries), but found Redbean to be almost ideal so never got past overall design to dig into code.
Turbo looks fantastic, though! It's precisely the niche I was looking to have filled, so I'll build a prototype or two in it to see what I think. Very much appreciate the pointer!
You’re welcome - we share interests, I too am interested in the Lua+batteries approach to life - I’ve used Lua very successfully in many commercial projects, so I’m quite convinced of its power in spite of the warts and thorns that many newbies in the ways of Lua tend to whine about.
TurboLua is particularly great because it really integrates about all of the I/O mechanisms you could want in a network-centric application, plus it has a pretty nice runtime loop which is easy to hook into and coordinate properly with signal handlers and fd sets and things. Can’t beat it as a very quick way to do embedded stuff too - very easy to do gpio, signal handling, etc.
Good luck, if you have time to share your thoughts after an initial first-pass, I’d be happy to hear your perspective ..
I started a web dev company 22 years ago after developing an online menu ordering system for a restaurant I owned. I, then we, did pretty much the same thing as talked about in the posting but we used fastcgi. I started with C because I knew C. That was my real job. It ran so well, the franchise bought the software from me--and then devolved it to all the Microsoft stuff and had issues upon issues from then on out. That's another story.
I continued to make sites for other venues that needed online ordering; such as theatre companies and restaurants. All in C, fastcgi, FreeBSD, postgresql and h2o-server cause it always did what we wanted without bending to someone else's rules. It was fast and easy to make changes while changes weren't made for us or without our consent. We did very well for ourselves.
For people who find interest in weird web applications, I have been working on a game project, in C++, where the client is compiled to WebAssembly with Emscripten, and the application server is also implemented in C++ (behind nginx).
This is from pre-AI era also. The game is Civ-like. Custom engine from scratch (including both the 3D stuff, and all the web handling also).
Golang also makes it possible to serve a web site or service from a single binary. You can even avoid linking libc if you stick to core Go (CGO_ENABLED=0), and it comes with all the http and tls libraries you need to replace the traditional web server (nginx, apache, httpd) as well.
I love C and wrote some CGIs in C in the past but I don't love concurrent programming in C. While forking and execing can use shared read-only mmap on .text segments, the .bss and .data will need initialization and copying; there's unavoidable startup overhead that a threaded process avoids, and raw pthreads is kind of painful. If all you need to do is serve a low traffic site, CGI is fine.
My biggest worry would be how often the SQLite DB gets backed up because there's no way a C web server will be free of RCEs in today's world.
Shameless plug: if you value Go, and CGO_ENABLED=0, and SQLite, and are worried about C in a web server and RCEs, may I interest you in my SQLite driver?
I obviously can't make any promises, as it's just a personal pet project, but those are the goals, and they do catch memory corruption bugs in practice: https://sqlite.org/bugs/forumpost/543f94984b
There's also methods of starting Rack applications directly form nginx via passenger[1]. Rack is the CGI like interface for ruby webapps: https://github.com/rack/rack
It easily allows for writing applications and middleware with a few lines of ruby.
Essentially I wanted fgciwrap to be able to accept arbitrary response bodies without headers, so I could use it with programs that weren't actually made for cgi. Lighttpd supports this but apparently that's an happy accident.
The time is right for AI to generate a basic C web framework just like Node Express with request, response, template, cookies, auth, db, websockets and some other libs
C introduces the possibility of memory-safety issues, which are deadly in server software that's exposed to the Internet. And AI, from what I've seen, is not all that great at writing software with zero memory bugs.
Rust closes the memory safety holes, at the cost of making the programmer think through ownership and architecture much more carefully. Those are exactly the skills that AI is good at. So if you want something fast and are writing it with AI anyway, why not have the AI generate Rust code?
A Go binary with CGO=0 and all templates/documents embedded gives you a better overall tooling and deployment experience. Put it in a scratch container for complete isolation.
SQLite does allow write access from mulitple processes - file locks (fcntl) are used to ensure at any given moment only one of processes modifies the database (or WAL if WAL is enabled).
SQLite can handle multiple concurrent requests if it's set to WAL mode. Reading is all non-blocking/concurrent but writing is still synchronous. You should also set the "busy timeout" or else your blocked writes will timeout immediately.
In Wal mode you can have multiple readers. Writers block, but because there is no network traffic, the writers finish very quickly, so in practice you don't usually wait that long.
> There can only be a single writer at a time to an SQLite database. There can be multiple database connections open at the same time, and all of those database connections can write to the database file, but they have to take turns.
However, it can also be configured in WAL mode where the single writer is applying WALs while the applications append to the log.
I learnt Perl because I had to make a page with a form that would then be turned into Postscript and printed. My only options were C, which I knew well, and Perl, which I had never seen before. So I got to learning Perl. Doing it in C just seemed like too much work for the task.
May have pre-dated you by a bit. Perl definitely took foot not long after but the earliest cgi-bin days were dominated by C before people got tired of fighting compilation for web apps.
IIRC the spec itself says it was built for C applications.
"A modern web application typically puts a web server like nginx in front and reverse-proxies to an application server written in another language like Ruby, Python, Go, or Rust. That always felt a bit strange to me: you essentially have two web servers, and one of them is also responsible for your business logic." -- Is the fundamental difference here that the business-logic binary is not always running but gets spun out with each request? This looks like a relatively minor thing, to be honest.
I meant to express the layers of abstraction feel strange to me in a typical setup.
A typical setup today looks like:
nginx -> puma/unicorn/gunicorn/etc -> your code
With cgi that middle layer is gone. It's just:
nginx -> your code
The layer reduction is nice when it comes to things like debugging. You don't have to guess if the middle server is removing a header, failing to forward a header, etc.
Early PHP (3 and 4) were the thin layer over the C libraries and were pretty fast and easy. it came about right when CGI was deprecated and it solved CGI's problems
came back to C/C++ for same reasons, no supply chain trouble, fits in my head, runs forever, ... here a playground for win32, using partially webview2, all batteries included, openai client , tts, stt, vpl, images, audio, video, ... comes with webview2 apps, settings (and encryption), config, rest server, ipc, testing, CLI11, postgres, installer, doc gen, modbus, OpenCV, daemon, computer use, agent memory, image tools, mcp server/client, experimental flow editor - what a fun and exciting times :) https://github.com/polymech-info/win32-boilerplate
I agree on "fits in my head". I haven't used C++ but I used to love ANSI C. I had a reference manual for it that was something like 30 pages and basically covered the entire language. There's something magical about the compact size of regular C.
It's been a long time since I have tried to do Windows work in C/C++. Is this Win32 the actual Win32 API of yesteryear or something else. I thought CMoke was a Unix tooling.
As someone who works on C compilers, I find the obession with C language insane.
For any greenfield project, pick up C++ in lieu of C if you want a C language.
There is no runtime penalty for using C++ if you stick to plain structs and don't use virtual functions, but you get better static type safety, lvalue references, namespaces, etc. even if you don't use the OO features.
Even for virtual functions, the overhead is minimal that it is just noise.
C compilers themselves are written in C++ for the last 15 years. Oh, the irony!
Because in practice it’s really hard to not succumb to C++ feature creep. You start with good intentions and limit yourself to namespaces and structs, but then the “this will benefit from a vector, or this from a map” appears, then you realize you’d like a templated use case, and a single raw pointer or resource handle from a call to something like fopen() suddenly is not releasing its resource on a linked list pop and now you’re writing move semantics on top of copy semantics because a destructor declaration silently enforces copies on a std::move without move semantics. You reach for a unique pointer and, and all of a sudden, you have most of modern C++ without a single virtual call.
So people obsess over C because you’re hard limited by the upper feature bound. And that’s not so bad because C gets feature updates too - microscopic but effective feature updates; see C29 for the poor man’s RAII: defer
I generally like "C-style C++", but I find it difficult to draw the line between C and C++. It's too easy to keep reaching into C++ for "just one more thing."
The underlying libraries you use tend to be in C anyway, so it simplifies things to just use them with their native interface, and not having to add another language runtime and its idiosyncrasies.
There is Boost in C++. It is very mature and honestly modern C++ has a lot of extremely powerful stdlib functionality and classes that will still be orders of magnitude more performant that the vast majority of the web app languages we use today. See https://www.boost.org/
i also do that way, but i also have written my own webserver so i have no cgi interface. it serves files and provides "special" sites for the application written in. I use html and css as a frontend. nealy no js code in the html. Things i hate:
- applicatin status handling
- mixing html, css, js and c in one file
- having no web "widgets" - having to make them by myself
I was not thinking about vanilla C and CGI but I wrote my own modern web api server app in C++ (std+boost only) and I found it extremely pleasant experience. very reliable and little supply chain/dependency hell problematic too.
It’s for intranet business app so although it’s not yet production ready yet, definitively winning against many other modern approaches in web development in my consideration, and quite refreshing POC project.
Yeah, shuddering at trying to manage memory vs static strings (with OOB risks) in plain C, modern C++ does give so much.
I'm actually also rewriting a header-only server (std c++ and sockets) I wrote a few years back to take advantage of C++26 reflections and similar to give it something similar in capability to AspNetCore+EFCore.
I'm still in the middle of reading but I wanted to comment first that I had a pleasantly surprising experience a few years ago with CGI. I hadn't thought about CGI since I was a kid and I was tasked with adding a simple dynamic page to a server that had nothing running yet except apache. For whatever reason I though to try out CGI because of how simple the page was going to be, and yeah. Would recommend
I just got C FFI working in my LLVM based language last night so I'll need to take a look at playing around with BCHS :)
Ideally, it should be a shell script for CMD.EXE, using the finest scripting language ever invented. The elegance of using FOR for such diverse tasks as enumerating files, file contents, string splitting, lists of numbers, and parsing the output of another command, is unmatched.
The standard string functionality is painful. I wrote my own string view and string builder that work with fixed size strings. No memory allocations, etc.
Yes, but why? Why really?
Are you Valgrinding the s*t out of the code? What about memory leaks?
No template language?
Did you use an A.I. Agent?
I mean, the code is probably porn for GTK/glib coders, unless it's a horror movie instead.
I'm really confused on the motivation there.
A shame to hand code a project in C and then use AI to write a blog post.
It’s a cool project to test yourself but most of the benefits outlined would also apply to Go, Rust, etc, and then you also get memory safety thrown into the mix as well.
It has headers like AI blogposts, and features a lot of parallel structure like AI blogposts ("there's no <blank>. you <blank>"), but if you actually read it none of it reads like slop. To me anyway.
Decent, but a half measure. Meaning you still depend on a separate web server (httpd in this case) to actually push your sites over the wire. This limits you in terms of how expressive your web application can be (ie you cannot arbitrarily write HTTP headers or choose how to serve your clients), and in terms of performance.
A far better (and harder approach) is to actually write the whole stack yourself. Meaning the actual web application and web server are packaged from a single binary. You of course have a myriad options in how to actually implement this (the server loop can run as a separate coroutine/thread/process/etc), but overall the performance and expressiveness flexibility is limitless. On top of that you can actually get blazing fast performance compared to classical approaches.
I'd also advise everyone to avoid CGI at all costs. It's overhead is massive (new process every time, more or less) and _itself_ is a half measure since implementing a proper code hot loading/module system for servers is too much of a hassle (and standardizing it is hard). Nowadays you want to inline your server and then handle HTTP generation separately (however you'd like).
I can't read any of the text on that page other than the headings. Is that what makes it modern? I assume the stack mentioned in the blog post is vibe-slop as well.
I wanted to try my hands at a monochromatic website and chose two shades that were far enough apart to pass a AAA contrast rating for accessibility. I'll try to improve it soon.
My eyes aren't particularly bad, not at the point where I need glasses to read books, program or anything, but I'm at 160-170% zoom before it's comfortable to read. HN is the same... so it might just be me.
I still like writing web applications in PHP for many of the same reasons listed here - modern PHP anyways.
I shy away from frameworks unless I am building something that I expect a large team to work on, or I specifically need multiple complex features that don't make sense to maintain.
I've written a few applications for my own personal use or targeted at friends/family recently that have no third party dependencies other than Bootstrap, which I still like more than tailwind for anything that doesn't need to look like a marketing page.
"Every request spawns a fresh process" <- this is when I stopped reading to save some time for the latest news in AI. Apologies for an abrupt interrupt.
"Every request spawns a fresh process. Deploying a new version is replacing one file. That means no server restart and no downtime. New requests simply pick up the new binary."
I think that's why FastCGI exists. It is the equivalent of PHP's "Swoole" or "FrankenPHP" or "amphp" or Laravel's "octane", etc. Each process is long-lived and tries to clean up its state as much as possible between requests. Forking a new process can take around 8ms (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19005586)
When I was building https://github.com/Qbix/webserver in PHP, I was faced with forking a new process per request. I implemented fork-per-request at first, similar to PHP-FPM and then implemented the "FastCGI" approach of long-lived processes that clean up after each request. (Modern PHP has introspection so the engine can know what to clean up, before calling the php files to handle things.) However, some things are not really possible to completely reset in PHP, and you have to be careful with database connection pools, etc. Typically those are left open even by preforking processes like php-fpm.
Anyway, I ended up flipping it: use the "FastCGI" approach as a default, and if the original PHP code doesn't work (rare), then for that app, you can choose the regular CGI approach of forking a process per request. That way you get maximum speed by default, and manually opt into safety (this is an exception to my usual priorities).
PHP is actually quite fast. But I was also interested in transpiling it to C. So I built the transpiler at: https://ulanguage.org/playground ... used Claude to transform about 1000 PHP functions to their native equivalents, but if you use any of the others, it would hook into the Zend runtime and link with it. (There are some nuances with zvals and objects, and resources in previous PHP versions, but I managed to overcome them.) By the way, it also works with Node and Python FFI the same way.
You can basically now take PHP, Python or Javascript/Typescript code, and speed up the CPU-bound parts about 10-50x. A lot of that is because of string and JSON handling. Many web apps use strings and JSON a lot. So underneath, I had the compiler use "ropes" for the strings, and avoid concatenation. It also parallelizes the JSON encode and decode into code that can run on multiple cores at once, i.e. large JSON payloads are encoded and decoded in parallel. Those are just huge speedups.
Anyway... all of this is mostly focused on speed optimization, so you can solve the literally C100K problem (forget C10K) today, on a regular box. If you don't need speed or FastCGI, your approach is fast enough for the vast majority of applications.
PS: By the way, if you fork after your program already loaded the framework and initialized the configuration, then you can run a lot more workers, literally 10x-100x more of them, because Linux and Mac will share all the loaded memory between processes, and do Copy-On-Write only on dirty pages. And when your request is done, and the process exits, that custom memory is efficiently cleaned up by the OS. It is this feature that allowed me to finally get the best of both worlds... run all existing PHP code, that makes blocking I/O requests all over the place to the database, filesystem, network etc. while at the same time being able to handle 100,000 requests in flight at the same time! Swoole and FrankenPHP can't do that.
FastCGI sounds like a perfect fit for Tiger Style and Zig. You can avoid allocations completely if you set up a fixed size arena and reset it after each request.
Visited this website out of curiosity, and... Please do not use Courier New as a monospace font, not even as part of a fallback. Its stem width for body text is often less than a pixel, which looks awful.
My favorite trivia is that busybox has built-in cgi-bin support (and `rclone serve webdav` seems remiss to not mention as well). `https://elixir.bootlin.com/busybox/1.37.0/source/networking/...`
Everything the post mentions is 100% true and well-reasoned, especially with the inclusion of pledge/chroot/etc. for dropping privileges.
There's two diametrically opposed deployment mechanisms:
1) stack towers of glop on top of each other until you're running a simple `echo "hello world"` on top of a docker container inside a vm in a proxmox server as part of a k8s cluster under a hypervisor running on remote compute...
2) just run `bash -c 'echo "hello world"'` and front it with CGI (stateless, single binary, yada yada yada...)
Take a peek at https://github.com/Domain/bash.cgi ... not that i'm suggesting that 'bash over busybox using cgi-bin' is the "proper architecture", it's more trying to illustrate that the amount of code that holds you back from being nearly truly "frameworkless" is tiny and easy to reason about.
For some of the internal tooling I'm doing for work, I've been tending towards:
When you use the process and shell environment itself as a repl, you start trending towards `[--cgi-bin]` would "just" be another output type, and the ability (nay: foresight!) to ensure that your commands are independent, reproducible, and only depend on their input arguments leads you directly towards being runnable in both "hostile" (ie: firecracker vm / lambda-style) or very "comfortable" environments (ie: shell, debuggers, unit/integration tests).Mirrors my experience, and it's funny you mention busybox: I just discovered busybox's ability to serve via `busybox httpd -p 9000 -h . -f -v` with a `cgi-bin` folder dropped in the current directory.
I already write Python services using Bottle that function both as a standalone server and as a CGI script, and I've been updating them to work with busybox's more constrained CGI environment (basically being able to handle the lack of .htaccess rewrite rules).
I definitely see a chance for simple deployment tools to make a resurgence as we create more one-off/disposable/personal software, and the low system requirements for something like busybox + lua stack are extremely minimal, which fits well with the current DDR4-is-good-enough zeitgeist. I'm running them on an old Raspberry Pi 2B and it's plenty performant for the ~10 people that access it regularly.
Instead of busybox+Lua, I just use TurboLua:
https://turbo.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
Event driven, fast, all the networking basics in place including http, mustache templates and encryption, light and small executable, very nice for embedded applications, signals and fd handling built-in, very easy to use…
Have used it very successfully for million-dollar projects, including some scientific applications running on limited-resource systems (512 megs of RAM) ..
Was very, very easy to add C functions to interface with the web front-end, libffi is great for this purpose, but its also very easy to extend as a standard, well-written Lua/C application ..
This is exactly the sort of thing I'm really interested in. I'm particularly excited about various takes on Lua+batteries, have looked into designing my own (C wrapper with bindings to networking, JSON, templating, and DB libraries), but found Redbean to be almost ideal so never got past overall design to dig into code.
Turbo looks fantastic, though! It's precisely the niche I was looking to have filled, so I'll build a prototype or two in it to see what I think. Very much appreciate the pointer!
You’re welcome - we share interests, I too am interested in the Lua+batteries approach to life - I’ve used Lua very successfully in many commercial projects, so I’m quite convinced of its power in spite of the warts and thorns that many newbies in the ways of Lua tend to whine about.
TurboLua is particularly great because it really integrates about all of the I/O mechanisms you could want in a network-centric application, plus it has a pretty nice runtime loop which is easy to hook into and coordinate properly with signal handlers and fd sets and things. Can’t beat it as a very quick way to do embedded stuff too - very easy to do gpio, signal handling, etc.
Good luck, if you have time to share your thoughts after an initial first-pass, I’d be happy to hear your perspective ..
I started a web dev company 22 years ago after developing an online menu ordering system for a restaurant I owned. I, then we, did pretty much the same thing as talked about in the posting but we used fastcgi. I started with C because I knew C. That was my real job. It ran so well, the franchise bought the software from me--and then devolved it to all the Microsoft stuff and had issues upon issues from then on out. That's another story.
I continued to make sites for other venues that needed online ordering; such as theatre companies and restaurants. All in C, fastcgi, FreeBSD, postgresql and h2o-server cause it always did what we wanted without bending to someone else's rules. It was fast and easy to make changes while changes weren't made for us or without our consent. We did very well for ourselves.
Feels so long ago the way you write about it, but 22 years ago was basically 2005
It was February, 2004
For people who find interest in weird web applications, I have been working on a game project, in C++, where the client is compiled to WebAssembly with Emscripten, and the application server is also implemented in C++ (behind nginx).
This is from pre-AI era also. The game is Civ-like. Custom engine from scratch (including both the 3D stuff, and all the web handling also).
Take a look: https://statebuilder.com/
Nice. I know your comment was on the technical points, but it definitely under sells the game!
It's beautiful
The deeper you go into complex web technologies & frameworks, the more obvious it becomes that simplicity wins.
Golang also makes it possible to serve a web site or service from a single binary. You can even avoid linking libc if you stick to core Go (CGO_ENABLED=0), and it comes with all the http and tls libraries you need to replace the traditional web server (nginx, apache, httpd) as well.
I love C and wrote some CGIs in C in the past but I don't love concurrent programming in C. While forking and execing can use shared read-only mmap on .text segments, the .bss and .data will need initialization and copying; there's unavoidable startup overhead that a threaded process avoids, and raw pthreads is kind of painful. If all you need to do is serve a low traffic site, CGI is fine.
My biggest worry would be how often the SQLite DB gets backed up because there's no way a C web server will be free of RCEs in today's world.
Shameless plug: if you value Go, and CGO_ENABLED=0, and SQLite, and are worried about C in a web server and RCEs, may I interest you in my SQLite driver?
https://github.com/ncruces/go-sqlite3
I just wrote up the security goals of the tool I use to translate C to Go: https://github.com/ncruces/wasm2go/blob/main/SECURITY.md
I obviously can't make any promises, as it's just a personal pet project, but those are the goals, and they do catch memory corruption bugs in practice: https://sqlite.org/bugs/forumpost/543f94984b
Is the CGI process opening up the SQLite database for every request...? That would have the most insane contention ever.
Would it? The file handle doesn’t contend for a lock IIRC; just writes.
I mean sure, you could still win if almost no requests are opening the database in write mode
CGI is great. Sadly nginx doesn't support it natively as opposed to lighttpd.
I like this project for adding CGI to nginx: https://github.com/pjincz/nginx-cgi
There's also methods of starting Rack applications directly form nginx via passenger[1]. Rack is the CGI like interface for ruby webapps: https://github.com/rack/rack It easily allows for writing applications and middleware with a few lines of ruby.
[1]: https://www.phusionpassenger.com/documentation/Users%20guide...
I just use lighttpd
I used it for a long time but the configuration of nginx just allows for more stuff.
I have my own configuration template for nginx: https://git.levitati.ng/Levitating/nginx.conf
But the real question is, does Caddy support it?
The answer is: it does but via community plugins.
fastcgi wrap.
Exactly what I used and wonder why the OP didn't. I'll comment at the top.
Ease of configuration, I think? I don't remember my gripes with fcgiwrap exactly.
I have used it and I've even made PR for it which led to a response from the lighttpd maintainer: https://github.com/gnosek/fcgiwrap/pull/62
Essentially I wanted fgciwrap to be able to accept arbitrary response bodies without headers, so I could use it with programs that weren't actually made for cgi. Lighttpd supports this but apparently that's an happy accident.
The time is right for AI to generate a basic C web framework just like Node Express with request, response, template, cookies, auth, db, websockets and some other libs
It would be blazing fast, for use by AI itself
Just for fun
Why C instead of Rust if you're using AI anyway?
C introduces the possibility of memory-safety issues, which are deadly in server software that's exposed to the Internet. And AI, from what I've seen, is not all that great at writing software with zero memory bugs.
Rust closes the memory safety holes, at the cost of making the programmer think through ownership and architecture much more carefully. Those are exactly the skills that AI is good at. So if you want something fast and are writing it with AI anyway, why not have the AI generate Rust code?
A Go binary with CGO=0 and all templates/documents embedded gives you a better overall tooling and deployment experience. Put it in a scratch container for complete isolation.
CGO=0 came in clutch at previous job when we were deploying Go apps compiled on builders that had a newer glibc than the actual prod server.
> There's no separate database server. You open the database file through SQLite's C API.
> Every request spawns a fresh process.
How does it work when multiple concurrent requests are possible? Does SQLite allow simultaneous write access from multiple processes?
SQLite does allow write access from mulitple processes - file locks (fcntl) are used to ensure at any given moment only one of processes modifies the database (or WAL if WAL is enabled).
SQLite can handle multiple concurrent requests if it's set to WAL mode. Reading is all non-blocking/concurrent but writing is still synchronous. You should also set the "busy timeout" or else your blocked writes will timeout immediately.
In Wal mode you can have multiple readers. Writers block, but because there is no network traffic, the writers finish very quickly, so in practice you don't usually wait that long.
Users who send concurrent requests will be summarily banned and their data deleted. It's the only way to be sure.
SQLite is a database. The main idea of a database is to support concurrent reads/writes although databases differ in how much concurrency they allow
The answer is more complicated for SQLite: https://sqlite.org/isolation.html
> There can only be a single writer at a time to an SQLite database. There can be multiple database connections open at the same time, and all of those database connections can write to the database file, but they have to take turns.
However, it can also be configured in WAL mode where the single writer is applying WALs while the applications append to the log.
The main idea of a database is to support storing data in a structured and queryable way. Concurrency came later.
I just really wish it had some examples of code in there to get a better idea of what is really going on. It sounds interesting.
They use this framework: https://learnbchs.org
Their example is:
I disagree with the first sentence. In 199x the first people I knew making web pages dropped perl scripts, not C programs, into cgi-bin.
I learnt Perl because I had to make a page with a form that would then be turned into Postscript and printed. My only options were C, which I knew well, and Perl, which I had never seen before. So I got to learning Perl. Doing it in C just seemed like too much work for the task.
Same. My first "web app" was a Perl CGI that saved data to mSQL (not MySQL), probably early 1995.
Same!
May have pre-dated you by a bit. Perl definitely took foot not long after but the earliest cgi-bin days were dominated by C before people got tired of fighting compilation for web apps.
IIRC the spec itself says it was built for C applications.
mod-perl was a godsend, of course.
Perl's CGI.pm was updated as recently as 5 months ago :)
https://metacpan.org/pod/CGI
I started using Perl in 1996.
But the very first CGI scripts I wrote were in C, late 95 or early 96. Apache on Slackware Linux.
I still have such Perl scripts deployed, though using FastCGI.
We did the CGI-bin in C thing at amzn in 1994.
"A modern web application typically puts a web server like nginx in front and reverse-proxies to an application server written in another language like Ruby, Python, Go, or Rust. That always felt a bit strange to me: you essentially have two web servers, and one of them is also responsible for your business logic." -- Is the fundamental difference here that the business-logic binary is not always running but gets spun out with each request? This looks like a relatively minor thing, to be honest.
I meant to express the layers of abstraction feel strange to me in a typical setup.
A typical setup today looks like:
nginx -> puma/unicorn/gunicorn/etc -> your code
With cgi that middle layer is gone. It's just:
nginx -> your code
The layer reduction is nice when it comes to things like debugging. You don't have to guess if the middle server is removing a header, failing to forward a header, etc.
It's obvious who does that with cgi.
Author described good ole PHP 3.
Early PHP (3 and 4) were the thin layer over the C libraries and were pretty fast and easy. it came about right when CGI was deprecated and it solved CGI's problems
came back to C/C++ for same reasons, no supply chain trouble, fits in my head, runs forever, ... here a playground for win32, using partially webview2, all batteries included, openai client , tts, stt, vpl, images, audio, video, ... comes with webview2 apps, settings (and encryption), config, rest server, ipc, testing, CLI11, postgres, installer, doc gen, modbus, OpenCV, daemon, computer use, agent memory, image tools, mcp server/client, experimental flow editor - what a fun and exciting times :) https://github.com/polymech-info/win32-boilerplate
I agree on "fits in my head". I haven't used C++ but I used to love ANSI C. I had a reference manual for it that was something like 30 pages and basically covered the entire language. There's something magical about the compact size of regular C.
It's been a long time since I have tried to do Windows work in C/C++. Is this Win32 the actual Win32 API of yesteryear or something else. I thought CMoke was a Unix tooling.
It's not very clear to me why the author has chosen C in the first place. I appreciate the effort of sharing the experience with us, anyway.
I didn't want to state why C and not "X" because the comments would have devolved into an all out language war.
As someone who works on C compilers, I find the obession with C language insane.
For any greenfield project, pick up C++ in lieu of C if you want a C language.
There is no runtime penalty for using C++ if you stick to plain structs and don't use virtual functions, but you get better static type safety, lvalue references, namespaces, etc. even if you don't use the OO features.
Even for virtual functions, the overhead is minimal that it is just noise.
C compilers themselves are written in C++ for the last 15 years. Oh, the irony!
Because in practice it’s really hard to not succumb to C++ feature creep. You start with good intentions and limit yourself to namespaces and structs, but then the “this will benefit from a vector, or this from a map” appears, then you realize you’d like a templated use case, and a single raw pointer or resource handle from a call to something like fopen() suddenly is not releasing its resource on a linked list pop and now you’re writing move semantics on top of copy semantics because a destructor declaration silently enforces copies on a std::move without move semantics. You reach for a unique pointer and, and all of a sudden, you have most of modern C++ without a single virtual call.
So people obsess over C because you’re hard limited by the upper feature bound. And that’s not so bad because C gets feature updates too - microscopic but effective feature updates; see C29 for the poor man’s RAII: defer
C3 lang gives you defer + a lot of significant ergonomic improvements right now: https://c3-lang.org
T> here is no runtime penalty for using C++
Large portions of the standard lib depend on heap allocations. C is a much safer target for environments with limited resources.
I generally like "C-style C++", but I find it difficult to draw the line between C and C++. It's too easy to keep reaching into C++ for "just one more thing."
That may be a me problem.
There is a huge mental overhead penalty...
It's what we did at amzn in 1994 ...
Wasn't amazon running on tandem back then?
In 1994, amzn ran on a single solaris workstation. Same at the beginning of 1995. I can't comment after that.
Fair enough. But I am also curious if you'd like to share your rationale.
The underlying libraries you use tend to be in C anyway, so it simplifies things to just use them with their native interface, and not having to add another language runtime and its idiosyncrasies.
I can never figure out why everything isn't in C. :|
Is it because you segfault before reaching the answer?
Yesterday or so there was a post about using Zig. When I read it I thought that using C would work equally well.
Yeah, I thought it was interesting that both of these[0] were on the front page.
[0] - the other one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50051573
I'm old enough to remember when the OKCupid guys wrote their own webserver in C++!
I took the concept of "slots" in requests, from it: https://github.com/okws/okws
There is Boost in C++. It is very mature and honestly modern C++ has a lot of extremely powerful stdlib functionality and classes that will still be orders of magnitude more performant that the vast majority of the web app languages we use today. See https://www.boost.org/
i also do that way, but i also have written my own webserver so i have no cgi interface. it serves files and provides "special" sites for the application written in. I use html and css as a frontend. nealy no js code in the html. Things i hate: - applicatin status handling - mixing html, css, js and c in one file - having no web "widgets" - having to make them by myself
It hasn't been touched in a long time, maybe that's because it's "complete", but here's a quick CGI library:
https://github.com/codazoda/cgi-lib
I was not thinking about vanilla C and CGI but I wrote my own modern web api server app in C++ (std+boost only) and I found it extremely pleasant experience. very reliable and little supply chain/dependency hell problematic too.
It’s for intranet business app so although it’s not yet production ready yet, definitively winning against many other modern approaches in web development in my consideration, and quite refreshing POC project.
Yeah, shuddering at trying to manage memory vs static strings (with OOB risks) in plain C, modern C++ does give so much.
I'm actually also rewriting a header-only server (std c++ and sockets) I wrote a few years back to take advantage of C++26 reflections and similar to give it something similar in capability to AspNetCore+EFCore.
I'm still in the middle of reading but I wanted to comment first that I had a pleasantly surprising experience a few years ago with CGI. I hadn't thought about CGI since I was a kid and I was tasked with adding a simple dynamic page to a server that had nothing running yet except apache. For whatever reason I though to try out CGI because of how simple the page was going to be, and yeah. Would recommend
I just got C FFI working in my LLVM based language last night so I'll need to take a look at playing around with BCHS :)
How about modern web apps in shell scripts only:
https://dhuan.github.io/mock/latest/examples.html
Ideally, it should be a shell script for CMD.EXE, using the finest scripting language ever invented. The elegance of using FOR for such diverse tasks as enumerating files, file contents, string splitting, lists of numbers, and parsing the output of another command, is unmatched.
I worked on a FORTRAN 77 CGI application in the early 00s. I think the host was Apache httpd, on some old HPUX version.
From the article, "WRITING HTML AND CSS IN C ISN'T TOO BAD".
Um, any and all string handling in C is pretty miserable.
To be fair, the HTML and CSS in C wasn't too bad.. the Youtube scraper was also written in C and that was a lot more painful :)
I can empathize entirely. After writing a scraper for html in C, outputting html in C is a piece of cake.
Emitting strings is fine, it's the parsing that sucks.
If you do it with the string functions from the standard library then yes, it is.
The standard string functionality is painful. I wrote my own string view and string builder that work with fixed size strings. No memory allocations, etc.
I am confused. Is this project open source? If yes, I could not find a link to the source code. Can someone help me?
Wow, you are a role model for me
Does anyone know if Hacker News uses CGI as well? I know there's some JavaScript and AJAX magic for the interactive elements on the frontend.
I remember the days of wrangling cgi-bin on Linux hosts! Not a common paradigm these days..
Yes, but why? Why really? Are you Valgrinding the s*t out of the code? What about memory leaks? No template language? Did you use an A.I. Agent? I mean, the code is probably porn for GTK/glib coders, unless it's a horror movie instead. I'm really confused on the motivation there.
> CGI's decline was justified in 2004 but doesn't hold up in 2026.
I mean, the article should not be taken seriously on any technical level. It's ok just for fun.
I think the best parody is one that leaves the reader wondering if it was intended as parody, or if the author was serious.
Instantly reminded me of this: source code of the first big Portuguese www portal and search engine: https://github.com/celso/sapo
why not dietlibc/gatling/append-only-DBs?
Reminds me of the Vibe.d web framework for D lang. Good memories.
Not open source, apparently. Am I missing something?
Who needs rust or javascript anymore when we can write all our code in C again and put an agentic zero-day hunter in the toolchain?
"Make no mistakes."
Or a comfy scripting language with a great FFI as X intended.
A shame to hand code a project in C and then use AI to write a blog post.
It’s a cool project to test yourself but most of the benefits outlined would also apply to Go, Rust, etc, and then you also get memory safety thrown into the mix as well.
I don't think the post was written by AI.
It has headers like AI blogposts, and features a lot of parallel structure like AI blogposts ("there's no <blank>. you <blank>"), but if you actually read it none of it reads like slop. To me anyway.
Interestingly, Pangram says that exactly the first 50% is AI and the second half is not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not that those tools are that accurate
https://mitsloanedtech.mit.edu/ai/teach/ai-detectors-dont-wo...
You could have saved milliseconds and used a pseudo random number generator.
It reads like autism to me. The theme confirms that.
Decent, but a half measure. Meaning you still depend on a separate web server (httpd in this case) to actually push your sites over the wire. This limits you in terms of how expressive your web application can be (ie you cannot arbitrarily write HTTP headers or choose how to serve your clients), and in terms of performance.
A far better (and harder approach) is to actually write the whole stack yourself. Meaning the actual web application and web server are packaged from a single binary. You of course have a myriad options in how to actually implement this (the server loop can run as a separate coroutine/thread/process/etc), but overall the performance and expressiveness flexibility is limitless. On top of that you can actually get blazing fast performance compared to classical approaches.
I'd also advise everyone to avoid CGI at all costs. It's overhead is massive (new process every time, more or less) and _itself_ is a half measure since implementing a proper code hot loading/module system for servers is too much of a hassle (and standardizing it is hard). Nowadays you want to inline your server and then handle HTTP generation separately (however you'd like).
CGI does allow arbitrary HTTP headers.
> Everything about marketyour.games is modern
I can't read any of the text on that page other than the headings. Is that what makes it modern? I assume the stack mentioned in the blog post is vibe-slop as well.
The BCHS stack is OpenBSD, C, OpenBSD's httpd, and SQLite. Is that the stack you are referring to or something else?
I wanted to try my hands at a monochromatic website and chose two shades that were far enough apart to pass a AAA contrast rating for accessibility. I'll try to improve it soon.
It was 100% human slopped :)
My eyes aren't particularly bad, not at the point where I need glasses to read books, program or anything, but I'm at 160-170% zoom before it's comfortable to read. HN is the same... so it might just be me.
I still like writing web applications in PHP for many of the same reasons listed here - modern PHP anyways.
I shy away from frameworks unless I am building something that I expect a large team to work on, or I specifically need multiple complex features that don't make sense to maintain.
I've written a few applications for my own personal use or targeted at friends/family recently that have no third party dependencies other than Bootstrap, which I still like more than tailwind for anything that doesn't need to look like a marketing page.
Connecting any C code to the internet is a terrible idea as we have learned over and over again.
Your server, operating system and database might all be written in C right now.
It's essentially a guarantee.
Linux is C.
Windows is C and C++.
macOS is C, ObjC, and C++.
And great effort had to be made to fix all the thousands of severe security bugs.
As if no large software system ever had such a problem and doesn't still today.
"Every request spawns a fresh process" <- this is when I stopped reading to save some time for the latest news in AI. Apologies for an abrupt interrupt.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26271117
"Every request spawns a fresh process. Deploying a new version is replacing one file. That means no server restart and no downtime. New requests simply pick up the new binary."
I think that's why FastCGI exists. It is the equivalent of PHP's "Swoole" or "FrankenPHP" or "amphp" or Laravel's "octane", etc. Each process is long-lived and tries to clean up its state as much as possible between requests. Forking a new process can take around 8ms (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19005586)
When I was building https://github.com/Qbix/webserver in PHP, I was faced with forking a new process per request. I implemented fork-per-request at first, similar to PHP-FPM and then implemented the "FastCGI" approach of long-lived processes that clean up after each request. (Modern PHP has introspection so the engine can know what to clean up, before calling the php files to handle things.) However, some things are not really possible to completely reset in PHP, and you have to be careful with database connection pools, etc. Typically those are left open even by preforking processes like php-fpm.
Anyway, I ended up flipping it: use the "FastCGI" approach as a default, and if the original PHP code doesn't work (rare), then for that app, you can choose the regular CGI approach of forking a process per request. That way you get maximum speed by default, and manually opt into safety (this is an exception to my usual priorities).
PHP is actually quite fast. But I was also interested in transpiling it to C. So I built the transpiler at: https://ulanguage.org/playground ... used Claude to transform about 1000 PHP functions to their native equivalents, but if you use any of the others, it would hook into the Zend runtime and link with it. (There are some nuances with zvals and objects, and resources in previous PHP versions, but I managed to overcome them.) By the way, it also works with Node and Python FFI the same way.
You can basically now take PHP, Python or Javascript/Typescript code, and speed up the CPU-bound parts about 10-50x. A lot of that is because of string and JSON handling. Many web apps use strings and JSON a lot. So underneath, I had the compiler use "ropes" for the strings, and avoid concatenation. It also parallelizes the JSON encode and decode into code that can run on multiple cores at once, i.e. large JSON payloads are encoded and decoded in parallel. Those are just huge speedups.
Anyway... all of this is mostly focused on speed optimization, so you can solve the literally C100K problem (forget C10K) today, on a regular box. If you don't need speed or FastCGI, your approach is fast enough for the vast majority of applications.
PS: By the way, if you fork after your program already loaded the framework and initialized the configuration, then you can run a lot more workers, literally 10x-100x more of them, because Linux and Mac will share all the loaded memory between processes, and do Copy-On-Write only on dirty pages. And when your request is done, and the process exits, that custom memory is efficiently cleaned up by the OS. It is this feature that allowed me to finally get the best of both worlds... run all existing PHP code, that makes blocking I/O requests all over the place to the database, filesystem, network etc. while at the same time being able to handle 100,000 requests in flight at the same time! Swoole and FrankenPHP can't do that.
FastCGI sounds like a perfect fit for Tiger Style and Zig. You can avoid allocations completely if you set up a fixed size arena and reset it after each request.
what are the code paths in php you're dropping for the actual speed improvement? just the parsing?
if not, you could have sent patches and have the best of both worlds
Patches? Explain
My goal for speed was to run all existing unmodified PHP code out there, but handle 10x as many requests and throughput
Well, and also a ton of other features too
> marketyour.games
Visited this website out of curiosity, and... Please do not use Courier New as a monospace font, not even as part of a fallback. Its stem width for body text is often less than a pixel, which looks awful.
Just the other day I thought it looked like the friggin official Python homepage is using Courier for the code example
Another interesting looking blog post that I can't bear to read without my eyes bleeding :(
Interesting. It looks fine to me. What's the part that bothers your eyes? (genuinely curious).
It supports reader view just fine...
I'm talking about all the claude-isms in the writing. i've seen a couple posts on linkedin that read just like this page