3 ms·
There are all kinds of considerations with respect to node. But discounting all interpreted languages because they are interpreted is crazy biased. I don't at
by slurgfest 14y ago
There are all kinds of considerations with respect to node.
But discounting all interpreted languages because they are interpreted is crazy biased. I don't at all accept (and it is not self-evident) that a high-boilerplate compiled language is necessary to have a large codebase or acceptable performance. Unless most of your storage is in memcached, the database is far more likely to be a bottleneck than your interpreter (!)
There are a number of compilers for Lisp.
Between these two issues with your post, I would not be convinced to accept your advice regarding node, either.
- hasenj 14y agoI'm aware that lisp can be compiled, that's why I said that dynamic languages "tend to be" interpreted (the implication being, they're not always interpreted). My point is about comparing dynamic and non-dynamic languages. Dynamic languages tend to have "magic" where complex logic occurs without you explicitly declaring it, at the expense of either a) maintainability or b) performance or c) both There's a trade off here: varying degrees of magic vs varying degrees of boilerplate. Boilerplate code can make things very explicit and thus easier to reason about. Now, NodeJS has the worst of both worlds. The callback mess is not easy to write, not easy to reason about, not easy to maintain, and there's no magic. That's a lot of sacrifice, it better be for good gain. But exactly do you gain? I don't see any gains. Performance? You can get that with other languages/platforms (like Go for example) without sacrificing code clarity.