RingoJS vs NodeJS

Post by hannesw » Wed, Jun 23, 2010, 5:59 PM UTC

amix wrote: post #27

hannesw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing comet performance between node and ringo should be interesting. Ringo uses jetty/cometd, so it should scale pretty decently as well. My guess is that node will use less memory per connection (and thus allow more simultanous connections), while ringo/jetty should have better latency. This is also what this benchmark suggests: http://praxx.is/post/486034949/comet-with-bayeux-node-js-vs-...

Before our node.js solution we actually ran Java along with a highly optimized JBoss Netty comet implementation and it had a hard time scaling since it used _a lot_ of memory. Generally, our Java solution used around 10 times more memory than our node.js solution. Like I note in that post: "We have rewritten to node.js from Java+JBoss Netty, because the old solution had scalability problems. We have also been able to…

Post by aaronblohowiak » Wed, Jun 23, 2010, 6:28 PM UTC

gmosx wrote: post #29

ahoyhere wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the way to win people to your way of thinking is to tell them that it's because of "cool marketing" and that it is a "toy." Swell! The OP's advice is sound: Stop making groundless rips on the other tool, and talk about why Ringo is better. Even "better" is totally subjective, because it depends on what you WANT from a tool. But instead of saying "If you like x, you'll love Ringo!" you basically resorted to t…

I don't have any technical problem with NodeJS. My problem with NodeJS is that it practically stopped the progress on the CommonJS discussion group, by moving the attention from important issues like a standard library, module transport, etc to non-issues like async. What a pitty...

Post by praxxis » Thu, Jun 24, 2010, 12:00 AM UTC

hannesw wrote: post #31

amix wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before our node.js solution we actually ran Java along with a highly optimized JBoss Netty comet implementation and it had a hard time scaling since it used _a lot_ of memory. Generally, our Java solution used around 10 times more memory than our node.js solution. Like I note in that post: "We have rewritten to node.js from Java+JBoss Netty, because the old solution had scalability problems. We have also been able to…

I know, i read that post. I'm planning to do a Node/Ringo comet comparison soon, and memory usage/max connections will be a part of that.

Post by ahoyhere » Thu, Jun 24, 2010, 8:54 PM UTC

gmosx wrote: post #29

ahoyhere wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the way to win people to your way of thinking is to tell them that it's because of "cool marketing" and that it is a "toy." Swell! The OP's advice is sound: Stop making groundless rips on the other tool, and talk about why Ringo is better. Even "better" is totally subjective, because it depends on what you WANT from a tool. But instead of saying "If you like x, you'll love Ringo!" you basically resorted to t…

I don't have any technical problem with NodeJS. My problem with NodeJS is that it practically stopped the progress on the CommonJS discussion group, by moving the attention from important issues like a standard library, module transport, etc to non-issues like async. What a pitty...

Post by hannesw » Sun, Jul 18, 2010, 11:23 AM UTC

voodootikigod wrote: post #19

gmosx wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the article is to bring Ringo in the spotlight. I strongly believe that the developers are doing a great job and the seamless access to Java libraries is the great selling point. If the article generates some (well deserved) attention for Ringo, it will be a success (even if some people do not agree with the wording)

Ever consider just submitting a talk about RingoJS to "cool marketing" AKA JSConf? We are a pretty open and "underdog-rooting" group. I might know someone up in the decision committee...