When someone says that Node.js cannot become enterprise standard like Java. Bitch what the fuck is Netflix, Yahoo, WalMart and PayPal using. Fuck you!

  • 7
    I don't have anything against node.js (I don't like js in backend though), but in this case using yahoo, which has been in the brink of extinction for years, paypal which is despised by developers and Walmart which is a terrible company to prove your point is terrible advertising...

    Netflix is ok.
  • 1
    @ggromx it's not about the opinion of dev crowd on the projects, it's about size and 'enterpriseness'

    Besides you can't say Yahoo Answers aren't hilarious and PayPal can get you some of that $$$ goodness at times.

    All in all, I like neither Java nor Node
  • 3
    Enterprise standard language doesn't mean an enterprise is using it, it means it provides enterprise grade "solutions".
  • 1
    What would be the other option instead of node? Others are either slower or less mature
  • 1
  • 2
    @treeroot not enough libs, very slow regexp execution
  • 1
    @qwertyboy what a shame, but thanks for information
  • 1
    At least the installer doesn't come with malware like the ask toolbar
  • 0
    Java runs alot of maintained systems. Can't escape it. Newer companies embrace node.js
  • 0
    @kaqqao hush, I fumble great hatred towards Java, since in comparison to other JVM languages or C#, it is plain retarded. If you want to burn your tongue yourself, you can check out my comments from like 14 days ago and cool it down on http://harmful.cat-v.org

    On the other hand, I am mostly a C programmer, so while I acknowledge there are some aged aspects of it, I have not much against it
  • 0
    @kaqqao Profitability to companies that don't usually give shit about code quality, language design and consistency doesn't imply ingenuity of the language. Cancer also makes a lot of money for hospitals but that doesn't imply cancer is good. Quite frankly, both are still widespread.

    You don't really care about objective quality of the design of the language, you just make yourself believe it's good and use not-directly-related facts as arguments.

    You could use some default arguments, but oh wait, you can't because Java doesn't support them. Check.
  • 0
    @kaqqao java.lang.OutOfMemoryError

    Yeah, I heard this tune before. Thanks for proving my point about what companies care about and rephrasing what I said with a greater amount of words and in a more energetic manner.

    As for backwards compatibility, I doubt you have better one than C, C++ or C#. Same, maybe? But certainly not the best.

    I agree with a lot of things you said, especially because it matches my words, but if you had elegant and frugal code, you wouldn't need to 'choke most tools with your code'
  • 0

    "companies that don't usually give shit about code quality, language design and consistency"


    "*These* are the features big players care about. Not language design, not brevity of code, not quick prototyping, not elegance, not fucking trends."

    >There's no room for inconsistencies, frameworks changing over night, poor fragile tooling and nonsense."

    You are comparing to JS here, I believe and I agree 100% with you on that. Has nothing to do with my original point though.

    When I spoke about consistency I meant language design consistency, for example naming in the standard library or other conventions. Framework inconsistency is absolutely unacceptable and I agree on that.

    >JVM's performance and characteristics are well understood and tuning them is well documented.

    So is .NET's. It says nothing about Java as a language, which is what I am talking about. I like many other JVM language and have nothing against them.
  • 0
    >Java is a reliable workhorse not a show dog, and that's what we need.

    A reliable workhorse has either a GC that works out of the box reliably without need for tuning or none at all. Being a show dog is bad and I agree with that, but that doesn't justify mandatory brackets about try-catch blocks even with single statements, lack of default parameters, outright refusal of operator overloading, lack of true properties or the way generics work in Java (type erasure)
  • 0
    >Our product works with massive data for a crazy number of clients, has many supported versions, and client instances have been upgraded multiple times across the years.

    Cool, cheers to that, but it doesn't contribute to the discussion of the language aspects much.

    >The tool support is leaps and bounds above the next.

    I agree, but so is C#'s and C++'s. I guess JS's to a degree too, but I don't use JS much. The issue with frameworks and which really gives me incentive to avoid it and outweighs great tooling in some instances.
  • 0
    frugal code == less code
    less code == less input to tools
    less input to tools == less time and performance needed to process it
    less time and performance needed to process it == less choking of tools
  • 0
Add Comment