3 ms·
My keyboard would wear out if I listed everything wrong with Socket.IO. Simply put: it is one of the worst pieces of software I have ever stumbled upon. And the
by alexhultman 10y ago
My keyboard would wear out if I listed everything wrong with Socket.IO. Simply put: it is one of the worst pieces of software I have ever stumbled upon. And the ratio hype-to-quality is off the charts. It's success lies in the fact that most users don't check their numbers and simply follow what everyone else is doing. Combined with the marketing of being "the fastest" which logically means "there exists no such solution in any universe, that outperforms it".
I would recommend WebSocket++ or libwebsockets (if you are not going with µWebSockets).
- h1d 10y agoAlways had WordPress as the top for that in my mind.
- sova 10y agoSocket.IO came out years ago. Yes, it is slow compared to recent implementations, but it's still valuable to give props to your predecessors.
- alexhultman 10y agoWebSocket++ was written at the same time as Socket.IO and performs about 30x better. I give credit where credit is due. I also criticize projects where criticism is due.
- zappo2938 10y agoIt looks like µWebSockets has bindings to Node.js. This is good to know.
- josephg 10y agoI can second this. I spent 2 months fielding bug reports against ShareJS all caused by terrible design mistakes in socket.io. I ended up being forced to write my own long polling library[1] just because of how unstable socket.io was. But today anyone building new applications should use websockets. Browser support is excellant, speed is great, firewall penetration is fantastic if you run your site on HTTPS. You gain cross-server language compatibilty, you avoid socket.io's awful design decisions around reconnection, error handling and code quality. [1] https://github.com/josephg/node-browserchannel https://github.com/josephg/node-browserchannel