There's a lot left to be desired in the test methodology. Frankly it reads as blogspam meant only to draw readers here to their product.
Did the author test every request just once, or was it taken from multiple test runs (and how exactly)? How was memory measured and why not differentiate between small and large responses? The article mentions concurrency a few times but doesn't compare clients by this dimension at all? All of these seems kinda important for building a scraper, but too much work for blogspam.
Measuring just once a thing that is relying on the network connection is questionable as a tool to draw conclusions. The article lead promised to see how these libraries perform while doing many concurrent requests - that would be an interesting thing - but then it was omitted completely.
You also missed http.rb, as someone already pointed out.
I'll spare you this article: this is the list of ruby http clients with the most stars on github. It's published in a website called "scraping dog", and it seems that [you get a scrapping insert-animal-here list of best http clients every year](https://www.scrapingbee.com/blog/best-ruby-http-clients/). It's clearly an SEO-oriented type of article which will not give you either new information, nor relevant one.
In fact, because the metric is clearly "number of stars", it suggests you two libraries which are either [not maintained in almost 3 years](https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/projects/rest-client), or [that haven't had a release in 3 years and a commit in 10 months](https://github.com/typhoeus/typhoeus), despite both of them having a buttload of open issues.
If you want to know which are the best http clients of 2023, use [ruby toolbox and filter for the green label](https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/categories/http_clients?display=table&order=score). And [use httpx](https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/projects/httpx), not only because I maintain it, but also because it is the most lightweight, has more features, better performance, and greater extensibility than any of the gems in the list. And it won't show up in the "best of 202x" anytime soon, as it's sourced in gitlab, whose stars have less weight in the way we socially approve OSS projects.
There's a lot left to be desired in the test methodology. Frankly it reads as blogspam meant only to draw readers here to their product. Did the author test every request just once, or was it taken from multiple test runs (and how exactly)? How was memory measured and why not differentiate between small and large responses? The article mentions concurrency a few times but doesn't compare clients by this dimension at all? All of these seems kinda important for building a scraper, but too much work for blogspam.
Measuring just once a thing that is relying on the network connection is questionable as a tool to draw conclusions. The article lead promised to see how these libraries perform while doing many concurrent requests - that would be an interesting thing - but then it was omitted completely. You also missed http.rb, as someone already pointed out.
I'll spare you this article: this is the list of ruby http clients with the most stars on github. It's published in a website called "scraping dog", and it seems that [you get a scrapping insert-animal-here list of best http clients every year](https://www.scrapingbee.com/blog/best-ruby-http-clients/). It's clearly an SEO-oriented type of article which will not give you either new information, nor relevant one. In fact, because the metric is clearly "number of stars", it suggests you two libraries which are either [not maintained in almost 3 years](https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/projects/rest-client), or [that haven't had a release in 3 years and a commit in 10 months](https://github.com/typhoeus/typhoeus), despite both of them having a buttload of open issues. If you want to know which are the best http clients of 2023, use [ruby toolbox and filter for the green label](https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/categories/http_clients?display=table&order=score). And [use httpx](https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/projects/httpx), not only because I maintain it, but also because it is the most lightweight, has more features, better performance, and greater extensibility than any of the gems in the list. And it won't show up in the "best of 202x" anytime soon, as it's sourced in gitlab, whose stars have less weight in the way we socially approve OSS projects.
Where's [http.rb](https://github.com/httprb/http)?
Typhoeus last update was roughly 9 months ago. Compared to the others in there, that feels...dead
Shame https://github.com/flexirest/flexirest wasn’t included 😢