3 ms·

I'm sorry the article wasn't up to your standards.

• coldtea 8y ago
  It's mostly the overall tone hammered on, e.g. starting with: "Will Node.js forever be the sluggish Golang?" which is click-baity. In fact I gave up around the insults at various Express-successors, and missed that the main point of the article is the µWebSockets.js. Why not go into that directly and skip the rest? That's what people would want to know, not that "Node is worse than Golang in raw performance".
  • alexhultman 8y ago
    I thought you said you had assessed the _whole_ article as bad? You didn't read past the ingress, the motivation of the work done.
    • coldtea 8y ago
      I stopped around the graph ("No so called “web framework” for Node.js, whether Fastify or not, can surpass the red line"). It didn't seem to point to some novel work, just to be some kind of piss take on Node.
    • craftinator 8y ago
      He obviously went and reviewed the rest, or how would he know about the uWebsockets portion? His point is that the article is poorly written enough that he had no desire to finish it, and I fully agree. More information and less disparaging fluff would make this piece much more attractive to the engineers of the world.