3 ms·
> it's very reasonable to suggest that we could do a lot better. Yes, and it's so damn obvious now that you'd better have something salient to add. To wit: th
by saidajigumi 12y ago
> it's very reasonable to suggest that we could do a lot better.
Yes, and it's so damn obvious now that you'd better have something salient to add. To wit: this has been done much better by others. C'mon, the book is called Javascript: The Good Parts (cough, 2008 vintage) This post is just chock full of bizarre straw-men in the guise of actual argument:
Systems stopped using cooperative multitasking at least 20 years ago because it sucked compared to the alternative of automatic, preemptive multitasking. And yet Node.js harks back to those dark days with its callback-based concurrency, all running in a single thread.
What the heck? No comprehension of evented systems? Reactive programming, anyone? No acknowledgement of the use cases when these systems do (or do not), in fact, kick total ass? Yes, the vanilla JS nested callback thing is a bit annoying. So don't do it. Use some of those FP chops and unwind it. Maybe a fold or a monad or some categorical pocket lint. Just please let cooperative multitasking have a nice rest.
- CmonDev 12y agoNode.js is just a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactor_pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactor_pattern http://wtfjs.com http://wtfjs.com
- saidajigumi 12y agoMETA: This is certainly the most divisive comment, vote-wise, that I've ever made. It was significantly positive last night, and is now currently hovering around zero. It's been up and down so much I really wish I could see the total vote volume. To downvoters: now certainly this has a bit of ranty nature to it, but is it really so off the mark and off HN policy that it deserves only a downvote, and no rebuttal or reply-in-guidance? Or are some of you just using your downvotes as rebuttals? C'mon, speak up!