3 ms·

"Backend programming" is a really broad class. It's safe to say that computationally intensive problems aren't best solved in node. For many server side "web se

by kotxig 7y ago

"Backend programming" is a really broad class. It's safe to say that computationally intensive problems aren't best solved in node. For many server side "web service" type applications node is sufficient but there are a lot of tradeoffs being made that you may or may not be aware of. By choosing node you are choosing single-threaded async IO as your primitive. You have to be ok without a threading model that supports shared memory (v8 objects don't pass between isolates, only certain types pass between web workers). And what's more, you have to be certain that your problem will fit these choices in the future. Is it ever a good idea to hamstring a backend service with one narrow concurrency model? By comparison, golang offers you all of those things. If you need to write a backend service that performs well and can respond well to changing requirements, you have a much better chance of doing it with golang than node. I just can't promise any individual developer that they will enjoy writing the golang service more than the node one. I don't want you to think I'm saying golang is better than node, we haven't even started to talk about the module system. I'm just saying fundamentally it is more flexible and can do everything that node does with at least the same level of performance, and generally it is "faster". Most things out of the box are faster. Benchmarking and performance is in the DNA of the go community and this isn't true for the node community.

justinmeiners 7y ago
> By choosing node you are choosing single-threaded async IO as your primitive In node is it very easy to fork processes and have them communicate. Scripting languages for serving HTML and JSON aren't the place for threads. Node now offers sync versions of most IO functions as well.
- kotxig 7y ago
  You just don't have shared memory at your disposal by forking processes. For example, having a rather large dictionary of translation strings which are read-only and static, you have to load these in every process as there is no copy on write property to these "forks". If your JSON payloads are large, you can't have a forked process do the deserialization of it (because you would need to re-serialize across the communication boundary, which defeats the point). I think it would be reasonable to have immutable data structures shared with web workers. I also think it would be reasonable to make it possible to pass complex objects (all primitive types supported by JSON) between workers without a serialization step.
- laurencerowe 7y ago
  Running multiple processes doesn’t solve the head of line blocking problem where a single large request causes all the small requests behind it to pile up increasing their latency too. When you have thread pools this is not a problem as each request is processed by the next available worker. JS has nice fast runtimes, and crucially the ability to share code between client and server. I think there’s potential (even without threads) to have a JS server architecture that does not require the entirety of a request/response to be processed in a single thread but could break it up so it could be processed by a pool of workers at IO event boundaries. Either as one isolate per request or explicitly passing state for IO event callbacks.

by kotxig 7y ago

justinmeiners 7y ago

> By choosing node you are choosing single-threaded async IO as your primitive In node is it very easy to fork processes and have them communicate. Scripting languages for serving HTML and JSON aren't the place for threads. Node now offers sync versions of most IO functions as well.

kotxig 7y ago
You just don't have shared memory at your disposal by forking processes. For example, having a rather large dictionary of translation strings which are read-only and static, you have to load these in every process as there is no copy on write property to these "forks". If your JSON payloads are large, you can't have a forked process do the deserialization of it (because you would need to re-serialize across the communication boundary, which defeats the point). I think it would be reasonable to have immutable data structures shared with web workers. I also think it would be reasonable to make it possible to pass complex objects (all primitive types supported by JSON) between workers without a serialization step.
laurencerowe 7y ago
Running multiple processes doesn’t solve the head of line blocking problem where a single large request causes all the small requests behind it to pile up increasing their latency too. When you have thread pools this is not a problem as each request is processed by the next available worker. JS has nice fast runtimes, and crucially the ability to share code between client and server. I think there’s potential (even without threads) to have a JS server architecture that does not require the entirety of a request/response to be processed in a single thread but could break it up so it could be processed by a pool of workers at IO event boundaries. Either as one isolate per request or explicitly passing state for IO event callbacks.