Unless I am just misunderstanding the article (entirely possible), the author poses the question: Do we need Node and then doesn't really seem to answer the que

Unless I am just misunderstanding the article (entirely possible), the author poses the question: Do we need Node and then doesn't really seem to answer the question (perhaps it is more of a theoretical question than an actual question). Nor does it address the claim that Node is baggage (in the third paragraph). Honestly, Node doesn't need and shouldn't need to support other engines. I strongly believe that the ecosystem is too involved in Node for V8 to all of a sudden just stop being good enough not to mention Google Chrome which is extremely popular is based on V8 and always being improved. If Node doesn't fit your use case, then maybe Node is not the right fit for your particular use case. Sure, some developers might have niche requirements that Node cannot fill, but as I said, maybe that is a sign that you are trying to use a tool not fit for the job. You can nails into a piece of wood using a boot, but that does not make it the right tool for the job. I and many other developers know what Node can do and what its limitations are. Instead of trying to change things, potentially resulting in a fragmented ecosystem, we can keep the one engine and ensure that things do not become too disjointed. One version of Node is better than multiple versions running different engines and other components that can be swapped out, sounds like an open source nightmare to me. Once again, perhaps I lack the understanding here, but since when did Node not become good enough for the tasks it was created for? Changing an engine out just cause is not a good enough reason to go ditching arguably one of the best open source engines out there for Javascript.