Ah never mind my fault. Needed "socket.connect(1111, 'localhost',
function(_) {" (missing underscore here).

On Apr 10, 8:16 pm, Joe Ferner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 5:01 pm, Axel Kittenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If I want to mix the syntax, let me, don't error out.
>
> > I lets you mix it, you just have to do it correctly. E.g: this works
> > without error:
>
> > function foo(_) {
> >     process.nextTick(_);
> >     console.log('a');
> >     process.nextTick(function() {
> >         console.log('b');
> >     });}
>
> > foo(_);
>
> > Don't blame streamline for your own shortcomings. I know of its
> > drawbacks in debugging mode, but thats about it, i get tired and angry
> > about the FUD spread around it, and you made a ton of it.
>
> Ok then perhaps you can fix my code because this gives me the error
> and from what I can tell it looks to follow your pattern...
>
> var net = require('net');
>
> function foo(_) {
>   var socket = new net.Socket();
>   socket.connect(1111, 'localhost', function() {
>     var start = new Date();
>     for (var i = 0; i <= 100000; i++) {
>       socket.write(new Buffer([i]), _);
>     }
>     var end = new Date();
>     console.log("done: " + (end - start));
>
>     socket.end();
>   });
>
> }
>
> foo(_);
>
>
>
> > > I just don't have time to write more benchmarks that no mater what I
> > > come up with Bruno will find another reason why it isn't valid.
>
> > Its not like Bruno is doing an evil plot here. Since as long your
> > benchmark does not compare apple with oranges, it will always be just
> > as fast as vanilla written code, since in the end, it translates to
> > vanilla code.
>
> I disagree about my benchmarks being incorrect.  Benchmark 1 was to
> purely compare the overhead of calling functions using traditional
> methods vs streamline. Methods with callbacks are not required to have
> async code in them, they just generally do. If you replace doIt with
> say a getUserFromCache method where 99% of the time you get cache hits
> and the function just returns the user this would be completely valid
> and you would incur the penalty. But I played along and tossed in an
> async call. Benchmark 2 is valid if you want to send data as fast as
> possible to the other side.  I would love to see this magical
> benchmark that streamline is as fast or faster than node but I have
> yet to see it.

-- 
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines: 
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en

Reply via email to