Twinify 1.0.2 cuts mapping time and memory use by roughly 45% over initial release

·1 views

Twinify, an open-source object-to-object mapping library for .NET, has released version 1.0.2 with notable performance and memory efficiency gains over its initial 1.0.0 release. Benchmarks run on .NET 10 using BenchmarkDotNet show that mapping 1,000 users now takes approximately 2,420 microseconds, down from 4,420 microseconds — a roughly 45% speed improvement. Memory allocation for the same workload dropped by about 44%, from 3.32 MB to 1.86 MB, also reducing garbage collection pressure. AutoMapper 16.2.0 was included as a reference and remains faster, completing the 1,000-user benchmark in around 1,108 microseconds with lower allocations. The Twinify developer plans further optimizations targeting nested mapping overhead, reflection on the hot path, and GC pressure in large mapping operations.

Read the full story at DEV Community

This is an AI-generated summary. ShortSingh links to the original source for the complete article.

Discussion (0)

Why Marketplace Platforms Should Settle Vendor Payments After Delivery, Not at Checkout

A software engineer who built a settlement service for a multi-vendor platform argues that crediting vendors at the moment of payment is a costly design mistake. Splitting money on payment success means any subsequent refund can become a collections problem if the vendor's funds have already been paid out. The recommended approach anchors vendor billing to a delivered_at timestamp plus a configured return window, ensuring funds are only released once the buyer's refund period has expired without incident. A SQL query from the live service enforces three conditions before a payout row is eligible: it must be unbilled, not excluded, and past the return window since delivery. The author contends this escrow-style model is not just good practice but the fundamental purpose of the data design in marketplace payment systems.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

AI Engineering 101: How Laravel Developers Can Integrate AI Without Building Models

AI Engineering refers to the practice of integrating existing AI models into real software applications to add useful features such as summarization, classification, or product recommendations. Developers do not need to train their own models; instead, their role is to connect a suitable model and ensure the overall feature is reliable. In a typical workflow, the AI model analyzes context and suggests outputs, while the application framework — such as Laravel — handles authorization, validation, database operations, and final business logic. Unlike traditional deterministic code, AI-assisted features can evaluate complex, multi-signal inputs like browsing history, budget, and purchase patterns. However, critical functions such as payments, permissions, and inventory management must remain under deterministic application control, not delegated to the AI model.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

How PHP's die() Function Can Be a Handy Debugging Tool for Beginners

A beginner PHP developer shares how the die() function proved unexpectedly useful for debugging, following advice from a senior colleague. Typically known for halting script execution entirely, die() can also be used to inspect variable values and output raw database queries at specific points in the code. This makes it particularly helpful when working with large or legacy backend projects where isolating issues can be challenging. However, the developer cautions that die() should never be left in production code, as it can cause server-related problems.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

15 LLM Visibility Tools Compared: What Tracks Your Brand in AI Answers

A new analysis distinguishes between LLM observability, which monitors model performance metrics, and LLM visibility, which tracks whether AI systems like ChatGPT mention or cite a brand in their responses. The review evaluated 15 tools ranging from $29/month platforms like OtterlyAI to enterprise solutions costing $5,000/month such as Profound, covering use cases from SMBs to large compliance-focused organizations. A key finding warns that citation overlap between AI engines on the same prompt is below 30%, meaning a pooled multi-engine average score can mask complete invisibility on the engine most relevant to a given industry. The report advises that the build-versus-buy decision typically shifts toward building in-house around 50,000 queries per month or when tracking 10 or more clients. It also highlights that only 14% of marketers currently track AI citations, even though 89% of brands already appear in AI-generated answers.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community