Node.js is Cancer

/prog/-quality rant: http://teddziuba.com/2011/10/node-js-is-cancer.html

Of course, the whole concept of server-side JavaScript is nearly as ridiculous as making a typesetting engine in Danmakufu.

7/10,  couldve scored better if it mentioned a jewish conspiracy

A long time ago, the original neckbeards decided that it was a good idea to chain together small programs that each performed a specific task, and that the universal interface between them should be text.

If you develop on a Unix platform and you abide by this principle, the operating system will reward you with simplicity and prosperity.

I printed this and glued it on my office

>>4
U MENA YOUR PARENT'S BASEMENT

I hadn't even heard of node.js until this post.

Then I looked it up and WTF!!!

require('http').http.createServer(function(request,response){response.writeHead(200, {'Content-Type': 'text/plain'});response.end('Typical >>6 Blub programmer\n');}).listen(80);

Node.js is what happens when macfags learn2programming

WEB2.0 SANDBOX TECHNOLOGY
vm.runInNewContext(code, [sandbox], [filename])

vm.runInNewContext compiles code to run in sandbox as if it were loaded from filename, then runs it and returns the result. Running code does not have access to local scope and the object sandbox will be used as the global object for code. sandbox and filename are optional.

Example: compile and execute code that increments a global variable and sets a new one. These globals are contained in the sandbox.

var util = require('util'),
    vm = require('vm'),
    sandbox = {
      animal: 'cat',
      count: 2
    };

vm.runInNewContext('count += 1; name = "kitty"', sandbox, 'myfile.vm');
console.log(util.inspect(sandbox));

// { animal: 'cat', count: 3, name: 'kitty' }

>>9
That's what closures are for, idiot.

>>8
U MENA RUBY

>>10
Source: http://nodejs.org/docs/v0.4.12/api/vm.html#vm.runInNewContext

http://www.reddnet.net/post/9540756290/node-js-revolution-or-just-a-repeat-of-15-years-of

I just wonder.

WHY DO WE NEED A SERVER SIDE JAVASCRIPT????????????

Sounds like SHIT to me

Saw a funnay meme pic, closed the tab

HASKAL!

http://mathias-biilmann.net/posts/2011/10/is-haskell-the-cure

GC is shit.

>>16
kill yourself faggot

>>13
People use ruby server side, javascript is a step up.

http://www.unlimitednovelty.com/2011/10/nodejs-has-jumped-shark.html

God, I'm so glad to finally see someone else hating on Node.js.  One of my roommates is a "big deal" in that community and I can't stand him and his punk noob friends telling me about the event loop.

They are all macfags too, which makes >>8 even funnier.

Fuck the police!

i am scared to try node due to "callback hell", but the simpleness of its servers seems nice.

also, about event based programming, it seems like that can generate code where it is hard to follow the "flow of logic". are there any good ways to structure that kind of code?

It's good to see expert quality fibs has made it out of /prog/ and is finally reaching the mainstream programming community.

>>20
I don't think node really deserves so much hate. There's a lot worse in common usage. Not that node is necessarily being put to good use. The community on the other hand? They seem to think "web developer" contains a redundancy.

>>22
Describe for me this "callback hell", please. In production code. I've yet to see anything that can't be refactored nicely.

people who hate on node, or any well known framework simply do not know the purpose they are  to be used for. it has it's purpose and it does it fairly well.

>>24
>>25
Noe.js simply has no purpose. There is no point. It is slow ("faster than PHP" you'll say? PHP is outdated shit) and does not bring anything new. It's like Apple "hey, this is new, this is amazing, this is a revolution". I call bullshit.

If you want non-blocking IO, I'd say you should try Erlang or Haskell. They are both interesting and fun languages, with - moreover - good parallelism and concurrency (cf. this: http://functional-orbitz.blogspot.com/2011/10/your-favorite-language-is-probably.html for an insightful post on the subject). Plus, the GHC implementation of Haskell is just amazing.

Node is macfag-"hipster wannabe"-"web 4.0" bullshit, and Node.js developers ought to die raped by a business of ferret while neo-nazis eat their family.

>>26
Real life simply has no purpose. There is no point. It is slow ("faster than hikikomori life" you'll say? hikikomori is outdated shit) and does not bring anything new. It's like suicide "hey, this is new, this is amazing, this is a revolution". I call bullshit.

>>26
Haskell
Haskell, OCaml and their ilk are part of a 45-year-old static-typing movement within academia to try to force people to model everything. Programmers hate that. These languages will never, ever enjoy any substantial commercial success, for the exact same reason the Semantic Web is a failure. You can't force people to provide metadata for everything they do. They'll hate you.

An important theoretical idea behind type systems is "soundness". Researchers love to go on about whether a type system is "sound" or not, and "unsound" type systems are considered bad. C++ and Java have "unsound" type systems. To date, the more "sound" a type system is, the more often it's wrong when you try to use it. This is half the reason that C++ and Java are so successful: they let you stop using the type system whenever it gets in your way. The other half of their success stems from the ability to create user-defined static types. The reason C++ and Java (particularly Java) have been so successful is that their type systems form a "let's not get any work done" playground for n00bs to spend time modeling things and telling themselves stories. You can't actually model everything; it's formally impossible and pragmatically a dead-end. But they try. And they tell their peers that you have to model everything or you're a Bad Citizen.

One very real technical problem with the forced-modeling approaches that static type systems are often "wrong". It may be hard to imagine, because by a certain definition they can't be "wrong": the code (or data) is programmatically checked to conform to whatever constraints are imposed by the type system. So the code or data always matches the type model. But the type system is "wrong" whenever it cannot match the intended computational model. Every time want to use multiple inheritance or mixins in Java's type system, Java is "wrong", because it can't do what you want. You have to take the most natural design and corrupt it to fit Java's view of the world.

>>28
(...) for the exact same reason the Semantic Web is a failure.

Still waiting for a cross-platform semantic filesystem that isn't Nepomuk and doesn't depend on seven million other libraries so that I can tag my porn pictures.

>>28
I disagree with parts of your statements.

It's true that Haskell has a very strict type system, but IMO it
is flexible enough to express most everyday systems, especially
MVC-based websites. HappStack looks well designed at a first
glance and I'm eager to take it out for a test-drive.

Can you give us an example of where the Haskell Type System
worked against you?

>>28
I don't understand what you mean by 'modelling anything' and 'forced modelling'. What is this modelling referring to?

>>30
I disagree with parts of your statements.

It's true that C/C++ has a very strict type system, but IMO it
is flexible enough to express most everyday systems, especially
MVC-based websites. Boost looks well designed at a first
glance and I'm eager to take it out for a test-drive.

Can you give us an example of where the C/C++ Type System
worked against you?

>>30
Can you give us an example of where the Haskell Type System worked against you?
Yes. I can.

$ ghci
GHCi, version 6.8.2: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/  :? for help
Loading package base ... linking ... done.
Prelude> ["Abc", 123]

<interactive>:1:8:
    No instance for (Num [Char])
      arising from the literal `123' at <interactive>:1:8-10
    Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (Num [Char])
    In the expression: 123
    In the expression: ["Abc", 123]
    In the definition of `it': it = ["Abc", 123]
Prelude>

>>31
What is this modelling referring to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model

>>33

("Abc", 123)

>>35
That isnt list.

>>35

$ ghci
GHCi, version 6.8.2: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/  :? for help
Loading package base ... linking ... done.
Prelude> "abc" == 123

<interactive>:1:9:
    No instance for (Num [Char])
      arising from the literal `123' at <interactive>:1:9-11
    Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (Num [Char])
    In the second argument of `(==)', namely `123'
    In the expression: "abc" == 123
    In the definition of `it': it = "abc" == 123
Prelude>

>>34
Are you saying that static typing forces programmers to model everything into mathematical models? Are you aware that computers are nothing more than high-speed bit-manipulating machines? Everything a computer does is 100% mathematics!

>>38
10 i = i + 1
15 IF i > 99999 THEN PRINT ".";: i = 0
20 IF INKEY$ = "" THEN 10
30 PRINT "King James Bible, Line:", i

God says line: 83027

8:24 And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we
perish. Then he arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the
water: and they ceased, and there was a calm.

8:25 And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid
wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he
commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him.

8:26 And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over
against Galilee.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14&version=NIV

Tongues.

>>38
IHBT.

>>38
Please, define "mathematics". It's a vague term in itself.

>>38

In the first place, most mathematicians would say that the interesting or professional part of mathematics is not about 2 x 2 = 4, because 2 x 2 = 4 is a finite and small problem, and so the answer (and the consistency of mathematics at this level) can be ascertained by inspection. As we read in Recursive Aspects of Descriptive Set Theory, by Dick Mansfield and Galen Weitkamp, p. v, "The primary concern of mathematics has been to use the infinite to elucidate this world. ... The primary concern of mathematical logic[20] has been to explore the nature of infinity in order to classify and explain its mathematical applications." So, to elaborate, most mathematicians trust that the consistency of finite structures is ascertainable by inspection. Only infinite structures are problematic: the history of explicit controversy in mathematics is largely a history of notions of the infinitely large and infinitely small. Thus, 2 x 2 = 4 would become problematic only if there were a change in the whole of arithmetic, which is an endless or infinitary structure, such that a dispute about the infinitude of arithmetic reacted back on 2 x 2 = 4.

>>30
(\f -> (f 1, f 'a')) id

>>41,42
Mr Finitist, it refers to what normal people know as mathematical logic. In this specific instance, I am referring to a computer's nature to compute elementary arithmetic, which is also considered mathematics to normal people. Computers are nothing more than machines that add, subtract and compare numbers together very very quickly.