Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why node.js disappoints me

eflorenzano.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#51

Post by percept »

olalonde wrote: post #6
kls wrote: post #3

I am of the opinion that there is no longer a need for server side templating languages and that they only serve to complicate the technology stack. With REST services, Javascript, CSS and HTML the technology stack for web development has become significantly simplified due to the fact that it is once again digestible. A designer can know HTML and CSS and provide designer services without having to know the intricaci…

I think a lot more people will start considering this possibility seriously the day Google announces it parses Javascript.

"Sites" vs. "apps."

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#52

Post by tlrobinson »

When I started doing server side JavaScript a few years ago I was frustrated by JavaScript libraries which were unnecessarily tied to browser-specific APIs like the DOM. That seems to have been somewhat fixed. Now I'm frustrated by the reverse.

The first step to fixing this is getting good implementations of CommonJS modules in the browser. JavaScript needs a module system (no, tags are not good enough) and CommonJS is the closest thing we have to a standard that can be added to existing environments.

Also important for interoperability is making sure people don't use proprietary extensions to CommonJS modules, which Node unfortunately has plenty of.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#53

Post by agentultra »

While GWT, Pyjamas, and other such toolkits have a ways to go I think there is some reason to believe that in the end they might work out.

For example, Pyjamas just got a kickstart in development (again) and released a compiler that can target both javascript and GTK from a single codebase. It also incorporates a JSON-RPC client, effectively abstracting out backend calls into what appear to be normal Python methods in the source.

My idea was to couple Pyjamas as an alternative front-end to normal template packages. You could theoretically write your entire application, UI code and all, in normal Python. The UI code would be heavily coupled to your backend code as if there were no seperation between the two. Once compiled to the javascript target, the interface should work just as well without any notice from you, the humble developer (making calls over JSON-RPC).

Check out my fork of Pylons on bitbucket to see how I've made wsgi apps speak json-rpc. It's a start. The problem right now is that I've heard many people moan that Pyjamas (and even GWT for that matter) do not spit out the best js. Something that could use improvement over time (and something I think will as long as there are interested developers). Either way, the next step is to write a paster template plugin to setup a project for using Pyjamas and a distribute pluging to add a compilation step to the build process.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#54

Post by tlrobinson »

jashkenas wrote: post #33

CoffeeScript ( http://coffeescript.org ) is my attempt to solve this exact problem. Take the parts of JavaScript that work well, fix the broken areas (statements-vs-expressions, variable scoping, difficult prototype chains), add features (like the array comprehensions mentioned in the article) ... and compile it all to lowest-common-denominator JavaScript that runs just as fast as the JS-you-would-have-written-yourse…

I like CoffeeScript, but what does it have to do with Eric's complaints? It does nothing to prevent people from duplicating effort or tying libraries to a specific environment.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#55

Post by bobds »

dstein wrote: post #42

I'll probably get downvoted (again) for tooting my own horn, but I am developing a JavaScript framework to definitively solve the JavaScript templating problem. http://www.jaxscript.com Here's a screencast version of a presentation I did for a local user group: http://vimeo.com/15127654 The technology works, it's really, really solid. I think all server-side template languages are going to be obsolete a lot faster th…

A screencast is not the appropriate way to introduce your code to developers. We want text.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#56

Post by mahmud »

xyzzyz wrote: post #12

Weblocks and Parenscript and CL-WHO and hu.dwim.perec and I write code in only one language too.

There is a good chance you might lose doing that.

Use Lisp for its strengths, and other technologies for theirs. Server side CL, client side jQuery, Postgres on the backend, and your choice of caches, proxies and middle-ware in between.

I have tried nearly every other combination of New Thing and Hyped Awesome, and came to this conclusion: don't do everything yourself, and don't use technologies others are not investing big $ in. Anyone can push something to github and launch a nice tryfoo.org site, that doesn't mean you should use it.

FWIW, I am migrating my entire web toolchain to the JVM and intend to start writing servlets in Lisp. Let Big Business be my R&D bitch. JVM is good enough, and it's posh.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#57

Post by sh1mmer »

I think the author has a valid point, but I disagree with his tone. I feel like those of us who were speaking about this early on always said that the browser would be the constraint.

This is why Yahoo has been working on using YUI3 in Node to offer an API layer that works both in the browser and the server. (http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2010/04/09/node-js-yui-3-dom-man...)

The latest demos of this have Expressjs being used to render using a YUI3 based templating (http://express.davglass.com/).

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#58

Post by bmelton »

jashkenas wrote: post #33

CoffeeScript ( http://coffeescript.org ) is my attempt to solve this exact problem. Take the parts of JavaScript that work well, fix the broken areas (statements-vs-expressions, variable scoping, difficult prototype chains), add features (like the array comprehensions mentioned in the article) ... and compile it all to lowest-common-denominator JavaScript that runs just as fast as the JS-you-would-have-written-yourse…

I don't know if it matters per se, but I'm in IE7, and while the 'run this code' demos work on the site, almost nothing else does. Specifically, none of the buttons in the floating toolbar do anything.

Also, I can't read the first paragraph of text, as the toolbar is hovering over it.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#59

Post by jashkenas »

tlrobinson wrote: post #54
jashkenas wrote: post #33

CoffeeScript ( http://coffeescript.org ) is my attempt to solve this exact problem. Take the parts of JavaScript that work well, fix the broken areas (statements-vs-expressions, variable scoping, difficult prototype chains), add features (like the array comprehensions mentioned in the article) ... and compile it all to lowest-common-denominator JavaScript that runs just as fast as the JS-you-would-have-written-yourse…

I like CoffeeScript, but what does it have to do with Eric's complaints? It does nothing to prevent people from duplicating effort or tying libraries to a specific environment.

Eric complained about implementation-specific language features in JavaScript -- things that only run on some, but not all of: SpiderMonkey, V8, JScript, and Nitro. To quote:

    Instead of coding in one language, we're actually coding 
    in two. One is the subset JavaScript that can be run in 
    all browsers, and another is the set of JavaScript that 
    can be run by Node.
He's not talking about features specific to the Node API, but to features present in V8 that are lacking in older versions of JScript, effectively. A lot of Node libraries use features like Array#forEach, Object.create, Array#indexOf, Function#bind, making libraries unusable in the browser, even when they should be able to run perfectly well there.

CoffeeScript doesn't prevent you from using implementation-specific features if you want to, but provides in-language alternatives to all of the things listed above, in a cross-browser fashion.

Objective-J works in the same way, doesn't it? It's possible to write Objective-J code that is tied to a particular runtime, but if you write in the regular style, you won't have any cross-browser trouble.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#60

Post by dstein »

auxbuss wrote: post #50
dstein wrote: post #42

I'll probably get downvoted (again) for tooting my own horn, but I am developing a JavaScript framework to definitively solve the JavaScript templating problem. http://www.jaxscript.com Here's a screencast version of a presentation I did for a local user group: http://vimeo.com/15127654 The technology works, it's really, really solid. I think all server-side template languages are going to be obsolete a lot faster th…

Interesting idea. A few comments: - It would be nice to see some more detail on your page. Writing stuff down might help with ideas too. - The video is too laboured. Too slow. I lasted 9 minutes, and was very interested, but that was as long as I could last. You need to script video fairly tightly to hold folk's attention. You can get away with more space when live, but it doesn't translate to video. There's a reason…

Yeah I know what you mean. I'm not terribly experienced with screencasts, and I did this one mainly for practice before a live presentation. I posted it for people who weren't in attendance, but thought perhaps others might be interested.
Post reply on HN