3 ms·

not a downvoter, but probably the “going to beat Node” part. an assertion which cannot be proved or refuted, and which is vague but provocative. edit: actually

not a downvoter, but probably the “going to beat Node” part. an assertion which cannot be proved or refuted, and which is vague but provocative. edit: actually I became a downvoter just now.

cies 9y ago
cohttp is not going to beat Node. Compiled code in a reasonably low level language should be able to beat (measures in all resources used, not just response times, but also mem/cpu consumption) an interpreted language for a simple task of responding to network requests. Well, that's at least what I believe, maybe I'm wrong.
- tessierashpool 9y ago
  this is also a vague but provocative claim. beat Node at what? what's the criteria for success? popularity? performance? security? I don't have a downvote for you, but answering a vague but provocative claim with another vague but provocative claim is not really that helpful in my opinion. "my language can beat up your language" is like "my dad can beat up your dad."
  - cwyers 9y ago
    ReasonML has two compilers -- a compiler that goes to JavaScript, and a compiler that goes to native code (the OCaml compiler, since Reason and OCaml share an AST/etc.) So if you want to use ReasonML with a web server, you have two options: 1) A native web server, or 2) NodeJS. Because Reason can compile to JS, you can use with Node just like any other compiles-to-JS language. The claim here (which I have no opinion on either way) is that using a particular native OCaml web server with ReasonML is faster than compiling ReasonML to JS and using it with Node.
    - cies 9y ago
      > that using a particular native OCaml web server with ReasonML is faster than compiling ReasonML to JS and using it with Node. Faster considering the resources used (mem/cpu). Yups. Exactly that was my claim. Cohttp cannot beat Node, while a natively compiled OCaml server should be able to beat node.

not a downvoter, but probably the “going to beat Node” part. an assertion which cannot be proved or refuted, and which is vague but provocative. edit: actually I became a downvoter just now.

cies 9y ago

cohttp is not going to beat Node. Compiled code in a reasonably low level language should be able to beat (measures in all resources used, not just response times, but also mem/cpu consumption) an interpreted language for a simple task of responding to network requests. Well, that's at least what I believe, maybe I'm wrong.

tessierashpool 9y ago
this is also a vague but provocative claim. beat Node at what? what's the criteria for success? popularity? performance? security? I don't have a downvote for you, but answering a vague but provocative claim with another vague but provocative claim is not really that helpful in my opinion. "my language can beat up your language" is like "my dad can beat up your dad."
- cwyers 9y ago
  ReasonML has two compilers -- a compiler that goes to JavaScript, and a compiler that goes to native code (the OCaml compiler, since Reason and OCaml share an AST/etc.) So if you want to use ReasonML with a web server, you have two options: 1) A native web server, or 2) NodeJS. Because Reason can compile to JS, you can use with Node just like any other compiles-to-JS language. The claim here (which I have no opinion on either way) is that using a particular native OCaml web server with ReasonML is faster than compiling ReasonML to JS and using it with Node.
  - cies 9y ago
    > that using a particular native OCaml web server with ReasonML is faster than compiling ReasonML to JS and using it with Node. Faster considering the resources used (mem/cpu). Yups. Exactly that was my claim. Cohttp cannot beat Node, while a natively compiled OCaml server should be able to beat node.