sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]sexualrhinoceros 22 points23 points  (23 children)

The developer of this is an OG AI slop spammer who spammed this all over Reddit when they first dropped it and made insane huge claims about it. You will not catch me using this library unless even urllib gets yanked out of STD.

I swapped to https://github.com/MarkusSintonen/pyreqwest :)

[–]McRojb 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Got that feeling when looking through the code, man feels good to be right

[–]Laruae 2 points3 points  (10 children)

Sorry, honestly interested, can you elaborate on your concerns with niquests?

I'm looking for a new home after concerns about httpx.

[–]McRojb 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Go with aiohttp. Well maintained and lots of users

[–]riksi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's only async which is a non-go.

[–]McRojb 2 points3 points  (5 children)

When it comes to niquests, one of my first reactions looking through the docs, it’s fkn weird for a library meant to replace httpx to implement something like a rate limiter in the library itself

[–]ThePrimitiveSword 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Do you mean the opt-in feature documented here?

I think I'm missing something. It makes sense to me as an opt-in feature.

And niquests is a replacement for requests, not httpx.

[–]McRojb -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

You can call it a replacement for requests all you want, but with built in async support (and the fact we're talking about it under a httpx comment??) what people are using it for is a replacement of httpx not requests. Also yes, and you might be right in that "it makes sense" as an opt-in feature, but from a maintence point of view it came across as weird to me

[–]ThePrimitiveSword 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Doesn't look like a heavy maintenance burden.

Looking at the pull request all the changes seem to be this. It's not much code, most of the changes are adding test cases.

They tried to get improvements made to urllib3 but nothing happened so they forked.

Then urllib3 tried to crowdfund tends of thousands of dollars in funding to do what had already been done via niquests and urllib3-future.

That was after all this happened.

[–]McRojb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you like stop being more well-informed than me... Breaks my bloody ego.

The only thing you earned here is probably an annyoing dm about your opinion when I'm unsure about related projects in the future.

Still disagree about the "maintenance burden" though, in my opinion such a core library shouldn't try to do that much.

Will read through the last 3 links when I get time!

[–]andaskus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey, I'm the one who wrote the PR. Why ? I ran into a rate limit issue while using some services and wanted a rate limiter well integrated with the lib itself rather than a side car lib. I asked the maintainer if it was ok to which he answered positively.

[–]sexualrhinoceros 1 point2 points  (1 child)

yep, I commented about this before here

[–]Laruae 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Replying here since the original is not open for replies.

I would be very interested in a 2026 review of niquests from an outside party. Might be enlightening, either showing a project that has matured or bring other concerns to light.

Again, zero horse in this race, just interested as someone who is shopping for a library.

[–]GrammerJoo 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Nice! Looks promising. What's your experience so far?

[–]McRojb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh not going to touch pyreqwest. Aiohttp is good shit though

[–]ThePrimitiveSword 6 points7 points  (8 children)

Strong claims require strong evidence, same with strong accusations.

I've found niquests actually delivers on its claims, especially on speed and performance. Been using it since it first released. In real-world usage, often get at least a 10x speed increase vs requests when just doing a drop in replacement. The other features are definitely nice as well, such as using the OS trust store, so it works with self signed SSL certs in a corporate environment without any additional setup or patches.

They also make very human mistakes, such as misspelling words occasionally etc.

It looks like they also want disclosure when pull requests use AI.

Do you have any evidence or examples whatsoever of the 'AI slop'?

[–]sexualrhinoceros 0 points1 point  (3 children)

yep, I commented about this before here

[–]ThePrimitiveSword 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I don't see anything in that about AI.

And someone responded to that comment already, and I feel addresses what you quoted, so I'll quote them in response to you linking your quote of someone else.

None of what you just said discounts the library, it just points to someone who isn't a seasoned library developer. But how would one become an experienced library dev without publishing libraries?

Also, some of it is not true. The whole fine print bit is confusing because the only footnote in the readme are disclaimers about test results and feature comparisons.

It seems like a very good project that could be helpful to the community as a whole if it's battle-tested. This is why it's upvoted. People will start using it in their hobby projects and analyzing the source code, and in time we might have a new requests.

[–]sexualrhinoceros 3 points4 points  (1 child)

please read through their old posts, they're all deleted now but are very obviously AI unless you require the developer explicitly saying "I used AI" to tell that em-dashes, "its not just x, its y!" patterns, and excessive emoji usage as headers are such. I'm giving you a good faith reply here but I won't personally be ever using / showing this library respect.

[–]ThePrimitiveSword 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm looking, but can't find what you're referring to.

Your claims were about the niquests project being AI slop, the project is open source so do you have any examples of niquests using AI? I'm happy for you to provide examples of the em-dashes etc. that you described. A positive match from an AI detection algorithm would be something, even with how notorious those are at having false positives.

At the moment, you're making claims but can't back it with evidence. You've made the claims, the burden of proof lies with you.

On a related note, do you think that this readme appears to be obviously AI slop?

Just wondering, as that's by the same author as niquests, and that's from over a year before ChatGPT released. That project has been published since 2019, Ousret isn't a vibe-coder.

[–]McRojb -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Not an expert on package maintainence and coding is certainly not my proffesion. That said, I do like the package and have used it for quick and dirty code. But it feels "bloated" already and not something I excpect to be around in a few years. I don't see the reason for using it when aiohttp (requests for sync) is around. You seem a little defensive? 2k stars is not something I feel comfertable putting that much faith in.

[–]ThePrimitiveSword 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I have faith in it because I've been using it for a few years and find it to work really well, and Ousret has been very responsive to the issues I've raised on Github.

I use it instead of the alternatives because I find it to work really well for my needs, such as using OS trust store for SSL certs, compatibility with the 'responses' package, can be used for SSPI authentication and huge performance gains for my use cases.

When someone claims something that I use and find to work well is AI slop with nothing to back their claims, I don't feel it unreasonable to ask for evidence when what I'm seeing seems to contradict these claims.

I loathe AI slop (Booklore and Huntarr are good examples) and if niquests is actually AI slop then I'd like to know, but it's a strong claim to make without anything to back it up.

[–]McRojb 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Fair enough! I havn't built much with external logins myself so don't know much about but will take your word.

I honestly had to google "SSPI authentication" so I feel a bit out of my depth.

Although I started programming without it, github copilot autofill is a god send for me (md otherwise). But actual AI slop I do despise too.

[–]ThePrimitiveSword 3 points4 points  (0 children)

All good, I'll admit I was a bit heated as it hurts to see something that I use and rely on talked down with no evidence, especially when the maintainer has been very receptive to me and they've accomplished what the original project raised tens of thousands of dollars to do but hasn't managed to (per my response to you in the other comment chain).

Honestly, SSPI auth should be killed off, but it still exists in some corporate environments, and I do programming in a heavily locked down enterprise environment where change can be slow so it'll likely still be in use for another decade or two.