4 ms·

“The only software that I like is one that I can easily understand and solves my problems. The amount of complexity I'm willing to tolerate is proportional to t

“The only software that I like is one that I can easily understand and solves my problems. The amount of complexity I'm willing to tolerate is proportional to the size of the problem being solved.“ Ryan Dahl - creator of nodejs

huygens6363 2y ago
Proceeds to assist with the most unimaginably complex system known to man to solve fancy forms and partial refreshes.
- Sammi 2y ago
  Compared to what? Ruby? Python? .net? Java? Maybe Go can claim to be simpler. But there are many runtimes that are popular and equally complex as nodejs.
  - huygens6363 2y ago
    Compared to not doing fancy forms and partial refreshes? I know, I’ll let myself out.
- z3t4 2y ago
  Node.js is a server framework for quickly building small systems like server daemons with good performance and security. It's interesting how much over-engineered it has become (blaming JavaScript) considering that it's now mainly a compiler target for web frameworks.
  - boxed 2y ago
    It's so easy to blame JS though. I recently rediscovered that it can't do divide by zero right. And it even does it wrong in two different ways: > 1/0 Infinity > 0/0 NaN
    - spc476 2y ago
      That's not the fault of JavaScript, but of IEEE-754 floating point math. The behavior you're seeing is per design.
      - boxed 2y ago
        That's a huge copout, and thankfully not one Python follows.
    - HKayn 2y ago
      JavaScript's behaviour in this case is consistent if we accept that JavaScript would always rather compute the next-best gibberish than throw an error. While `1 / 0` is not a valid operation, it can be interpreted using limits. If `x` approaches 0, then `1 / x` will approach `Infinity`, hence JavaScript's result of this operation. But with `0 / 0`, there is no unambiguous interpretation, so JavaScript defaults to `NaN` as its indicator for when a number is expected, but not received in valid form. I'm not defending this behaviour of the language, just pointing out that there aren't "two different ways" of wrong behaviour at display here.
79a6ed87 2y ago
>"The amount of complexity I'm willing to tolerate is proportional to the size of the problem being solved." I like this quote, it reminds me to another favorite of mine, the Sagan standard: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

huygens6363 2y ago

Proceeds to assist with the most unimaginably complex system known to man to solve fancy forms and partial refreshes.

Sammi 2y ago
Compared to what? Ruby? Python? .net? Java? Maybe Go can claim to be simpler. But there are many runtimes that are popular and equally complex as nodejs.
- huygens6363 2y ago
  Compared to not doing fancy forms and partial refreshes? I know, I’ll let myself out.
z3t4 2y ago
Node.js is a server framework for quickly building small systems like server daemons with good performance and security. It's interesting how much over-engineered it has become (blaming JavaScript) considering that it's now mainly a compiler target for web frameworks.
- boxed 2y ago
  It's so easy to blame JS though. I recently rediscovered that it can't do divide by zero right. And it even does it wrong in two different ways: > 1/0 Infinity > 0/0 NaN
  - spc476 2y ago
    That's not the fault of JavaScript, but of IEEE-754 floating point math. The behavior you're seeing is per design.
    - boxed 2y ago
      That's a huge copout, and thankfully not one Python follows.
  - HKayn 2y ago
    JavaScript's behaviour in this case is consistent if we accept that JavaScript would always rather compute the next-best gibberish than throw an error. While `1 / 0` is not a valid operation, it can be interpreted using limits. If `x` approaches 0, then `1 / x` will approach `Infinity`, hence JavaScript's result of this operation. But with `0 / 0`, there is no unambiguous interpretation, so JavaScript defaults to `NaN` as its indicator for when a number is expected, but not received in valid form. I'm not defending this behaviour of the language, just pointing out that there aren't "two different ways" of wrong behaviour at display here.

79a6ed87 2y ago

>"The amount of complexity I'm willing to tolerate is proportional to the size of the problem being solved." I like this quote, it reminds me to another favorite of mine, the Sagan standard: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"