On 01/21/2013 02:04 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:49:30 -0800
"H. S. Teoh" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 01:27:48PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:54:59 +0100
"deadalnix" <[email protected]> wrote:
We move from ruby on rail to Node.js for scalability reasons
!!!!!!
I take it this "scalability reason" is to avoid scalability?
You should to read Ted Dziuba's "Node.js is Cancer", he explains it
better than I can: (He's destroyed all his good older posts, but I
managed to save this one from a cache:)
https://semitwist.com/mirror/node-js-is-cancer.html
Anything that involves running javascript on a *server* cannot
possibly be a good idea. (I mean, I have hesitations about running
javascript on the *client*, needless to say a server...)
Exactly.
Although, I'd be willing to entertain the idea that it's better than
running PHP on a server. Not that that's saying much. Case in point:
https://semitwist.com/articles/
The scariest thing I've ever seen involving Node.JS is, and I kid you
not, a Coke machine. Drink.JS is the latest iteration of the project,
and the author loves using technologies that aren't really there yet.
(For a while, nobody could use it because it limited itself to WebSocket
output when it only existed in Chromium Canary. He started it when Node
wasn't even really out yet) He absolutely refuses to believe that JS is
not a sane choice. I'm still hoping that the constant downtime and bugs
(my favorite: NMAPping the server would crash it) is more of a
programmer error, but I feel like Node was a horrible choice for the
maintainability alone. (Sadly, the same reason why I wouldn't use D for
a rewrite of it...yet)
tl;dr: Bad experience with Node in places where Node should never be
