Video: Ryan Dahl: Node.js
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Topic - Internationalisation and Multinationalisation in javascript. (2010-03-23)
Next: FAQ Topic - Internationalisation and Multinationalisation injavascript. (2010-03-23)
From: Scott Sauyet on 26 May 2010 16:35 Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote: > So sorry for not falling into fanboyism based on a few buzzwords. > Calling something faster than Ruby isn't much of an accomplishment by > itself as its well known as a relatively slow language to start with. > In regards to "tiny", I guess you and I weren't watching the same > video with the memory statistics involved. I stand by my claim that > node.js is immature and premature. Experiment all you want, but I'd be > wary of building anything business critical on it at this point. The speaker in the video made some of the same points himself. But immature technologies have a way of maturing, and I'm interested in the possibilities this offers. It's clear that this is not yet ready for prime-time. But getting involved with it now offers users the ability to influence its development. Node.js seems to me to offer some potential that other server-side JS solutions don't yet have. But I'm still hoping to hear from someone with some expertise to offer a substantive critique of node.js. -- Scott
From: Ry Nohryb on 26 May 2010 17:00 On May 26, 8:40 pm, "Michael Haufe (\"TNO\")" <t...(a)thenewobjective.com> wrote: > On May 26, 1:35 pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > > > So sorry for not agreeing with you nor with any of your pre-judices. > > Apology accepted. I'm glad to know. But you'd first step over your prejudices, 2nd try it out, and 3rd delay arriving to any conclusions until after that, imo. You're going to love it. -- Jorge.
From: "Michael Haufe ("TNO")" on 26 May 2010 17:57 On May 26, 3:35 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote: > > So sorry for not falling into fanboyism based on a few buzzwords. > > Calling something faster than Ruby isn't much of an accomplishment by > > itself as its well known as a relatively slow language to start with. > > In regards to "tiny", I guess you and I weren't watching the same > > video with the memory statistics involved. I stand by my claim that > > node.js is immature and premature. Experiment all you want, but I'd be > > wary of building anything business critical on it at this point. > > The speaker in the video made some of the same points himself. > > But immature technologies have a way of maturing, and I'm interested > in the possibilities this offers. It's clear that this is not yet > ready for prime-time. But getting involved with it now offers users > the ability to influence its development. Node.js seems to me to > offer some potential that other server-side JS solutions don't yet > have. > > But I'm still hoping to hear from someone with some expertise to offer > a substantive critique of node.js. Seems a bit meaningless beyond a general overview if its as young as is claimed.
From: john on 26 May 2010 18:08 On 26 May 2:19 AM, Michael Haufe ("TNO") wrote: > On May 26, 1:05 am, john<john.loves.spam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> it's too bad that the experts/regulars in this group seem to be so >> unaware of such an interesting project as to not even recognize its >> name. > > Its an old idea in a new form. node.js is far from the first foray of > JavaScript into the server (which was first seen in 1998 AFAIK with > Netscape). it's quite a bit more than just another "foray of JavaScript into the server". you could write a complete HTTP server with it, or you could use it on your laptop as a replacement for bash to script repetitive system tasks (i know Windows has some kind of system scripting environment that utilizes JScript but not being a Windows user it's of little interest). i don't know exactly what you're referring to from Netscape in 1998 but i'm guessing that was more about sharing front-end and back-end code; such as used in form validation. that's hardly comparable to what you could do with Node. could you use this Netscape invention to script your laptop in 1998? for example could you have used it create a build tool? could you have built a simple HTTP server with it? an IRC server? > So is it innovative? No. i'll take your word for it. besides i haven't claimed it anything more than interesting; though i'd have thought particularly so for those involved with ECMAScript on a daily basis. i don't mind being wrong. >> do the people around here with a deep understanding of ECMAScript really >> not find any interest in the language outside a browsing context? > > This is a false characterization and exaggeration of the people who > visit this group. so that's a "no" in response to the question. glad to hear it.
From: john on 26 May 2010 18:17
On 26 May 1:03 PM, Michael Haufe ("TNO") wrote: > On May 26, 12:19 pm, Ry Nohryb<jo...(a)jorgechamorro.com> wrote: > >> Certainly not TNO's posts. I think he's very very much disoriented wrt >> Node. Node is a tiny, lovely, and damn fast thing that you program in >> our much beloved JS. I'm using it now in every project. In some cases >> it's running 40 times faster than the Ruby tool it replaces... DAMN >> FAST :-) > > Calling something faster than Ruby isn't much of an accomplishment by > itself as its well known as a relatively slow language to start with. how about faster that Python, Perl or some other JIT compiled dynamic language? > In regards to "tiny", I guess you and I weren't watching the same > video with the memory statistics involved. I stand by my claim that > node.js is immature and premature. Experiment all you want, but I'd be > wary of building anything business critical on it at this point. the creator of Node said as much himself so i'm not sure what the point of your repeating it as "my claim" is. perhaps for the benefit of those who haven't seen the video. certainly Ry was well aware since he presumably watched the video before posting the link. |