>> The difference here is stark because in Node.JS's execution model, the moment it receives a request on the slow route, it must fully complete the computation

>> The difference here is stark because in Node.JS's execution model, the moment it receives a request on the slow route, it must fully complete the computation for that route before it can begin on a new request. With this statement, the author acknowledges that the Node.js code in the slow route was not asynchronous. The test is therefore invalid; it's comparing apples and oranges. Node.js is more than capable of handling different requests asynchronously (regardless of whether they are fast or slow); if you have any kind of blocking or waiting around happening; then you're doing it wrong. I'm so tired of all the anti-Node.js propaganda; it's hurting people. If I walk into one more company where some zombie tells me that they're migrating away from Node.js because "the Node.js event loop starves the CPU", I'm going to have a stroke. In reality all Node.js 'starvation' problems can be solved with the 'cluster' module or the 'child_process' module. Since we've been talking a lot about 'Fake news' on Facebook recently. Maybe we should start talking about how fake news is affecting Hacker News. This anti-Node.js strain is particularly virulent.