«

Ry Nohryb <> writes:

> Yes, you ought to. Node.js has nothing to do with YUI. Node.js is a
> wonderful thing for any JS programmer, even more so if he happens to
> love unix.

Yes, I think I like it, but I've had far too little time to actually
do something with it.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen
'Javascript frameworks is a disruptive technology'

On May 26, 12:19*pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:

> Certainly not TNO's posts. I think he's very very much disoriented wrt
> Node. Node is a tiny, lovely, and damn fast thing that you program in
> our much beloved JS. I'm using it now in every project. In some cases
> it's running 40 times faster than the Ruby tool it replaces... DAMN
> FAST

So sorry for not falling into fanboyism based on a few buzzwords.
Calling something faster than Ruby isn't much of an accomplishment by
itself as its well known as a relatively slow language to start with.
In regards to "tiny", I guess you and I weren't watching the same
video with the memory statistics involved. I stand by my claim that
node.js is immature and premature. Experiment all you want, but I'd be
wary of building anything business critical on it at this point.

On May 26, 8:03*pm, "Michael Haufe (\"TNO\")"
<t...@thenewobjective.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 12:19*pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
>
> > Certainly not TNO's posts. I think he's very very much disoriented wrt
> > Node. Node is a tiny, lovely, and damn fast thing that you program in
> > our much beloved JS. I'm using it now in every project. In some cases
> > it's running 40 times faster than the Ruby tool it replaces... DAMN
> > FAST
>
> So sorry for not falling into fanboyism based on a few buzzwords.
> Calling something faster than Ruby isn't much of an accomplishment by
> itself as its well known as a relatively slow language to start with.
> In regards to "tiny", I guess you and I weren't watching the same
> video with the memory statistics involved. I stand by my claim that
> node.js is immature and premature. Experiment all you want, but I'd be
> wary of building anything business critical on it at this point.

So sorry for not agreeing with you nor with any of your pre-judices.
--
Jorge.

On May 26, 1:35*pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:

> So sorry for not agreeing with you nor with any of your pre-judices.

Apology accepted.

Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> So sorry for not falling into fanboyism based on a few buzzwords.
> Calling something faster than Ruby isn't much of an accomplishment by
> itself as its well known as a relatively slow language to start with.
> In regards to "tiny", I guess you and I weren't watching the same
> video with the memory statistics involved. I stand by my claim that
> node.js is immature and premature. Experiment all you want, but I'd be
> wary of building anything business critical on it at this point.

The speaker in the video made some of the same points himself.

But immature technologies have a way of maturing, and I'm interested
in the possibilities this offers. It's clear that this is not yet
ready for prime-time. But getting involved with it now offers users
the ability to influence its development. Node.js seems to me to
offer some potential that other server-side JS solutions don't yet
have.

But I'm still hoping to hear from someone with some expertise to offer
a substantive critique of node.js.

--
Scott

On May 26, 8:40*pm, "Michael Haufe (\"TNO\")"
<t...@thenewobjective.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 1:35*pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
>
> > So sorry for not agreeing with you nor with any of your pre-judices.
>
> Apology accepted.

I'm glad to know. But you'd first step over your prejudices, 2nd try
it out, and 3rd delay arriving to any conclusions until after that,
imo. You're going to love it.
--
Jorge.

On May 26, 4:00*pm, Ry Nohryb <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:

> I'm glad to know. But you'd first step over your prejudices,

Many of the same claims were made by the author himself. Its just
simply not reliable at this point and too young.

> 2nd try it out,

Once it hits a 1.0 release maybe

> and 3rd delay arriving to any conclusions until after that, imo. You're going to love it.

One doesn't have to use every piece of software to give a general
critique about it. I don't have to build a word processor in befunge
for example before I can conclude its not the right way to go about
it. If better examples were given more questions could be asked and
answered. But even so, before it hits a 1.0 release stage many of the
issues raised may as well disappear anyway. I don't see much utility
in crawling up its ass with a Microscope if its still in flux.

On May 26, 3:35*pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> > So sorry for not falling into fanboyism based on a few buzzwords.
> > Calling something faster than Ruby isn't much of an accomplishment by
> > itself as its well known as a relatively slow language to start with.
> > In regards to "tiny", I guess you and I weren't watching the same
> > video with the memory statistics involved. I stand by my claim that
> > node.js is immature and premature. Experiment all you want, but I'd be
> > wary of building anything business critical on it at this point.
>
> The speaker in the video made some of the same points himself.
>
> But immature technologies have a way of maturing, and I'm interested
> in the possibilities this offers. *It's clear that this is not yet
> ready for prime-time. *But getting involved with it now offers users
> the ability to influence its development. *Node.js seems to me to
> offer some potential that other server-side JS solutions don't yet
> have.
>
> But I'm still hoping to hear from someone with some expertise to offer
> a substantive critique of node.js.

Seems a bit meaningless beyond a general overview if its as young as
is claimed.

On 26 May 2:19 AM, Michael Haufe ("TNO") wrote:
> On May 26, 1:05 am, john<john.loves.spam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> it's too bad that the experts/regulars in this group seem to be so
>> unaware of such an interesting project as to not even recognize its
>> name.
>
> Its an old idea in a new form. node.js is far from the first foray of
> JavaScript into the server (which was first seen in 1998 AFAIK with
> Netscape).

it's quite a bit more than just another "foray of JavaScript into the
server". you could write a complete HTTP server with it, or you could
use it on your laptop as a replacement for bash to script repetitive
system tasks (i know Windows has some kind of system scripting
environment that utilizes JScript but not being a Windows user it's of
little interest).

i don't know exactly what you're referring to from Netscape in 1998 but
i'm guessing that was more about sharing front-end and back-end code;
such as used in form validation. that's hardly comparable to what you
could do with Node. could you use this Netscape invention to script your
laptop in 1998? for example could you have used it create a build tool?
could you have built a simple HTTP server with it? an IRC server?

> So is it innovative? No.

i'll take your word for it. besides i haven't claimed it anything more
than interesting; though i'd have thought particularly so for those
involved with ECMAScript on a daily basis. i don't mind being wrong.

>> do the people around here with a deep understanding of ECMAScript really
>> not find any interest in the language outside a browsing context?
>
> This is a false characterization and exaggeration of the people who
> visit this group.

so that's a "no" in response to the question. glad to hear it.

On 26 May 1:03 PM, Michael Haufe ("TNO") wrote:
> On May 26, 12:19 pm, Ry Nohryb<jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
>
>> Certainly not TNO's posts. I think he's very very much disoriented wrt
>> Node. Node is a tiny, lovely, and damn fast thing that you program in
>> our much beloved JS. I'm using it now in every project. In some cases
>> it's running 40 times faster than the Ruby tool it replaces... DAMN
>> FAST
>
> Calling something faster than Ruby isn't much of an accomplishment by
> itself as its well known as a relatively slow language to start with.

how about faster that Python, Perl or some other JIT compiled dynamic
language?

> In regards to "tiny", I guess you and I weren't watching the same
> video with the memory statistics involved. I stand by my claim that
> node.js is immature and premature. Experiment all you want, but I'd be
> wary of building anything business critical on it at this point.

the creator of Node said as much himself so i'm not sure what the point
of your repeating it as "my claim" is. perhaps for the benefit of those
who haven't seen the video. certainly Ry was well aware since he
presumably watched the video before posting the link.