> @FooBarWidget, an obvious Phusion Passenger troll (look at his posts)
Correction, I am one of the Phusion Passenger authors. I do not make this a secret.
You seem to have misunderstood my response for trolling. I apologize if I came over like that, but all I want is some critical discussion and better explanations than grand claims without proof.
> G-WAN offers both. And 13 other languages.
I never said it didn't. I merely said there are legit reasons for using Javascript over C.
> Node.js will never survive 2 million users if it faints at 1 thousand users.
> For the same reason that makes Nginx faster than Apache: better coding.
Ok, now give me some details. These statements are meaningless on their own. "will never survive" contradicts real-world examples in which Node obviously did survive. Also, under what hardware? What networks? What operating systems? Under what test conditions?
Nginx is faster than Apache because of "better coding"? That vague statement doesn't mean anything. Nginx is faster than Apache partially because of its architecture: evented vs multiprocessing/multithreading, speed at the cost of flexibility, memory allocation patterns, etc. Nginx isn't anywhere near the swiss army knife that Apache is, and as soon as it is it will become comparable in performance. I can pinpoint specific areas in Nginx and explain why they're faster than the equivalent in Apache. Can you do that with G-WAN vs the rest?
I'm looking an in-depth technical study of what makes G-WAN faster than the competition, not vague grand statements.
> On the site that you claim that you have read.
They have the source code for the benchmarking app but not the hello world app. Direct link please.
> You "moderated" this Hackers News entry to:
> - spread FUD about G-WAN
Calm down, this isn't a war. I apologize if it come over as FUD, but it was merely critical curiosity.
> and
> - promote Phusion Passenger (your product)
Correct. I make no attempt to hide this. In fact, I challenge you to find any promotional messages that are not based on facts. I do not, and do not want to, promote my products with FUD or inaccuracies.
> Phusion Passenger is not censored on Wikipedia because, like Node.js, it is much slower than G-WAN.
What do censoring and Wikipedia have to do with this? And correct, it is slower. We focus on ease of use, reliability, stability and features, not raw performance. If highest req/sec at the cost of everything else is what you want, then you are looking at the wrong product.
I cannot help but feel that your statement that Phusion Passenger is "much slower" than G-WAN is an attack in an attempt to defend G-WAN. Again, it is not my intention to troll or spread FUD on G-WAN.
> Maybe that's why you ask how G-WAN manages to be so much faster?
Yes, that is exactly why. As an application server author I am constantly seeking to improve my knowledge and skills in this area.
Performance is not always the end goal. It comes at a cost. Nginx is not faster than Apache because it's "better coded" but because of tradeoffs in architecture and features. Likewise, there are ways to make Phusion Passenger faster, but they come at the cost of reduced code maintainability, reduced feature set, etc.
And uhm, klue, whoever you are... please don't reply from a newly created account made for the mere sake of replying to me. I want a civilized, technical discussion, not a pissing contest. Please reply with your real account.