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

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#61

Post by jashkenas »

bmelton wrote: post #58
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.

While it's quite embarrassing in regards to this conversation, zero effort has gone into making the homepage render properly in IE. The language is quite another matter. After working around IE bugs all day, getting up motivation to tackle them for the homepage of personal project is difficult -- you want to draw a line in the sand, and say, not this time. But you're right, of course.

Edit: CSS updated, see below.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#62

Post by exit »

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…

do you think it's worth fixing deeper stuff, like arrays of numbers being lexically sorted?

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#63

Post by olsonjeffery »

tl;dr -- if the only reason you'd consider "swallowing the bitter pill" of programming in JS on the server is because of the fallacy that you can get a single codebase for the client and server, then node isn't for you.

Way to knock down the straw man, you really showed 'em.

Look around on http://nodejs.org/ and tell me where I can read that one of node's stated goals was to facilitate a single codebase between the client and server?

Head on over to the node.js mailing list and you'll find a very sharply divided community when it comes to this question (one codebase for client/server), not surprisingly.

In my opinion, many (although certainly not all) of the people out there talking about one-codebase-to-rule-them-all are doing so mostly out of a shallow grasp of the domains in question. I'm not trying to be derisive here or bring the wrath of the gods down upon me, but you just have to accept that the client and server are different environments/platforms, period. Attempts to seek the "silver bullet" in this regard will end as most, if not all, other such attempts have: outright failure or, at best, mediocrity.

Putting the merits (or lack thereof) of my previous paragraph aside, if the question in your mind that follows from that is: "then why use node? javascript blows/is meh/is not ruby/etc?", well, I would respectfully beg to differ. The laissez-faire nature of javascript is pretty empowering, to me, and I enjoy it greatly. Additionally, node.js is novel in the manner in which is leverages the power of V8 and is built from, basically, the bare-metal on-up as an evented architecture (the same cannot be said for twisted or eventmachine). It's more than just throwing a bone to developers with a predominantly client/javascript-based portfolio and I think it's disingenuous to dismiss or characterize node's appeal as such (and yeah, now I'm building the straw men).

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#64

Post by silentbicycle »

simonw wrote: post #41
Locke1689 wrote: post #28

I don't understand the applause for Javascript. Yeah, we've unified on one language for client-side and server-side, but I don't like programming in Javascript. Why would I move to Javascript for server-side when I could program in Python and minimize the amount of JS I actually have to write? Does everyone just like Javascript?

Have you ever taken the time to learn it? JavaScript is a pretty neat little language - the way it does functions and closures allows for a programming style that doesn't really work in Python (due to the lack of multi-line lambdas). My eyes were first opened to JavaScript during my Computer Science degree, during a course on Programming Languages - the professor spent a full lecture on how interesting it is, and it…

Have you ever looked into Lua? It's like a more mature version of Javascript. The overall design has a lot in common, but unlike JS, Lua didn't get frozen before its early design errors could be fixed (due to the browser wars) - instead it has had 15+ years of gradual refinement.

It's targeted at scripting C / C++ applications rather than web sites. It's great as a standalone scripting language, too.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#65

Post by bmelton »

jashkenas wrote: post #61
bmelton wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While it's quite embarrassing in regards to this conversation, zero effort has gone into making the homepage render properly in IE. The language is quite another matter. After working around IE bugs all day, getting up motivation to tackle them for the homepage of personal project is difficult -- you want to draw a line in the sand, and say, not this time. But you're right, of course. Edit: CSS updated, see below.

Oh no, I understand completely. If my personal homepage works in IE7, it's a fortunate, but unintended happening altogether.

That said, I was very interested in CoffeeScript as part of my job is to write new whiz-bang features into applications that run on older browsers (such as the IE7 I visited you on today.)

Bear in mind, CoffeeScript especially appeals to people in my position. It just sucks I can't read it / play with it now.

Still, I've bookmarked it for later reading from home, so hopefully I won't forget.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#67

Post by percept »

kls wrote: post #48
pilif wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in this case, the API was so simple, I could easily roll my own (it's not even a real framework - I have one resource, the alias and I allow basically just POST to /aliases to create one at the moment). The beauty about node is that it's so simple to extend and add the functionality you need. No magic, no huge framework to learn. The little things you get though work awesomely well and are a pleasure to use.

If you could find the time to shot me an email (possible with some samples, or some links) of how you did your REST services with Node, I would be forever in your debt. My email is in my profile if you get a chance.

Post it here! Or someplace we can access, if it's useful.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#68

Post by bad_user »

kls wrote: post #47
toddheasley wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This makes the assumption that all apps are dumb frontends to a database. I think the commenter is talking specifically about templating languages, not all server-side logic. In terms of MVC, I think the idea is that now you can move the entire view layer to the client, rather than doing half on the server and half in JavaScript.

Right, my point was that templating was a concern of the UI, yet I wanted to be clear that business logic and data services remain the domain of the application server. Further I try to remove templating from any run-time concern (server or client) by doing all static content templating in a CMS and then publishing it to a web server.

OK, sorry, I misunderstood your point.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense to do Javascript server-side for templating (client-side only is still tricky because of concerns related to crawlers, like search-engines).

But on the other hand, I would prefer the JVM with Rhino, not Node.js ... especially since using Java NIO you can have scalability for I/O bound requests similar to Node.js.

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#69

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Why node.js disappoints me

#70

Post by jashkenas »

bmelton wrote: post #65
jashkenas wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's quite embarrassing in regards to this conversation, zero effort has gone into making the homepage render properly in IE. The language is quite another matter. After working around IE bugs all day, getting up motivation to tackle them for the homepage of personal project is difficult -- you want to draw a line in the sand, and say, not this time. But you're right, of course. Edit: CSS updated, see below.

Oh no, I understand completely. If my personal homepage works in IE7, it's a fortunate, but unintended happening altogether. That said, I was very interested in CoffeeScript as part of my job is to write new whiz-bang features into applications that run on older browsers (such as the IE7 I visited you on today.) Bear in mind, CoffeeScript especially appeals to people in my position. It just sucks I can't read it / pl…

I've pushed some CSS tweaks for IE to CoffeeScript.org -- it still won't look real pretty, but everything should be usable now. Should have done it a long time ago, thanks for the nudge.
Post reply on HN