Node.js cures cancer • Hacker News Board

Re: Node.js cures cancer

#51

Post by ricardobeat » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 7:20 AM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #35

jeswin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that fibonacci was a bad choice in your example and it proved nothing. It is fairly easy to scale node with multiple processes. As long as you don't have a long running (such as fibonacci) operation. If you do have tasks like that, process outside node and check for completion. Like how Tasks work in Google App Engine. Also, most other web stacks will discourage you from running a 30s fib on a thread p…

> Also, most other web stacks will discourage you from running a 30s fib on a thread processing web requests. This isn't specific to node. Difference being, with other stacks a request running for 30s will have little impact on the rest of the machine. With node, the whole server gets stuck, not just that precise request and the machine resources necessary to perform the computation (or whatever). The fib example is…

Only if you're crazy enough to put something in production running a single node instance.

Re: Node.js cures cancer

#52

Post by sitharus » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 7:20 AM UTC

kenneth_reitz wrote: post #2

It should be noted that, with PyPy, the Python example executes in 3.924s.

And F# running under Mono executes in 0.950s and the code is shorter, where standard Python 2.6 takes 1m36s. This isn't about pure speed.

Re: Node.js cures cancer

#53

Post by pork » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 7:26 AM UTC

ryanpers wrote: post #39

xnxn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, I think I've missed something because that response seems overly dismissive. How is offloading CPU-intensive stuff to a worker system not getting it done?

because you dont fix everything with another layer of indirection. add in some more queuing (which as we know never has a problem) just to ger around 'no threads' seems stupid.

um...the whole thing with asynchronous event-based processing is that you can (ideally) dispense with threads for many use cases.

Re: Node.js cures cancer

#54

Post by ricardobeat » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 7:27 AM UTC

rian wrote: post #33

IMHO i think node.js sucks because it forces you to manually pass callbacks around. can't it remember my call site for me and use coroutines or call/cc or yield or something? even fork() exists on UNIX (or pthread_create()). why is passing callbacks around the answer? it's like using GOTO.

It can actually:

http://onilabs.com/stratifiedjs https://github.com/0ctave/node-sync

Re: Node.js cures cancer

#55

Post by aaronblohowiak » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 7:51 AM UTC

jjm wrote: post #23

evanlong wrote: post #18

guys guys guys. you do realize ted is trolling us all right (go look at his twitter @dozba right now. I think he is having a great time). he is a pro at this ( http://teddziuba.com/2011/07/the-craigslist-reverse-programm... ) Also if his thoughts on node.js don't annoy you enough go take a look at his archive: http://teddziuba.com/archives.html . He blogs/trolls/thinks about NoSQL, OS X, twisted/tornado, python, queu…

Those new to NodeJS will still read this trolled post and find real gems of info here. So all is not lost.

Except it contains a lot of FUD, like saying that Node has no SSL support.

Re: Node.js cures cancer

#56

Post by dekomote » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 7:55 AM UTC

kenneth_reitz wrote: post #2

It should be noted that, with PyPy, the Python example executes in 3.924s.

But, does it webscale?

Re: Node.js cures cancer

#57

Post by biot » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 7:55 AM UTC

evanlong wrote: post #18

guys guys guys. you do realize ted is trolling us all right (go look at his twitter @dozba right now. I think he is having a great time). he is a pro at this ( http://teddziuba.com/2011/07/the-craigslist-reverse-programm... ) Also if his thoughts on node.js don't annoy you enough go take a look at his archive: http://teddziuba.com/archives.html . He blogs/trolls/thinks about NoSQL, OS X, twisted/tornado, python, queu…

There are actually some great posts in there. If you've been around long enough you'll overlook the asshole facade and see that while he often presents the material in a trollish, absolute manner there's wisdom to be found.

Re: Node.js cures cancer

#58

Post by petercooper » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 8:13 AM UTC

It's the equivalent of tying a giant boulder to the back of a Ferrari 599 and scoffing at how Ferrari can dare to call it a "high performance" car. Stop trying to drag giant boulders around.

Re: Node.js cures cancer

#59

Post by wlievens » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 8:16 AM UTC

pork wrote: post #53

ryanpers wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because you dont fix everything with another layer of indirection. add in some more queuing (which as we know never has a problem) just to ger around 'no threads' seems stupid.

um...the whole thing with asynchronous event-based processing is that you can (ideally) dispense with threads for many use cases.

You will have to do more of it, of course.

In a classic thread-based system, it's okay if a single page takes a bit longer (e.g. >1 sec) to render if it's within your user's line of expectation.

You can't do that here because you'll block all the others.

But any decent developers knows that, so he takes the advantages Node.js offers and fixes the disadvantages that come along with it. Big deal.

Is this discussion really only about the scalability tagline? Some taglines are misleading, really?

Re: Node.js cures cancer

#60

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 8:20 AM UTC

thatdrew wrote: post #6

As a cancer survivor, just wanted to let you know that the poor taste exhibited here is pretty sad. When you want to make your point next time, use a title that doesn't include something that kills people. Thank you.

[deleted]