So I'm a node critic, and I think both the technology and the community suffer from technical immaturity.
But I actually use it and depend on it, for precisely the shared-codebase reason. And it helps immensely for my use case.
I actually started out with Ruby on server side, but spent increasing amounts of time duplicating the same code in both languages. Switching it all to Javascript was a demonstrable win.
When people argue it's a specious benefit, it just means they haven't tried to build a truly ambitious client-side application. If performance, consistency, and security matter you're going to have a lot of code that needs to run at the client for responsiveness and at the server for safety & security. And if you care about offline-capable applications, the problem because even more acute: your clients are now a fully distributed system with their own state, and it's easier to write all the synchronization and recovery logic once, and run it everywhere on both clients and servers.
Comments
So I'm a node critic, and I think both the technology and the community suffer from technical immaturity.
But I actually use it and depend on it, for precisely the shared-codebase reason. And it helps immensely for my use case.
I actually started out with Ruby on server side, but spent increasing amounts of time duplicating the same code in both languages. Switching it all to Javascript was a demonstrable win.
When people argue it's a specious benefit, it just means they haven't tried to build a truly ambitious client-side application. If performance, consistency, and security matter you're going to have a lot of code that needs to run at the client for responsiveness and at the server for safety & security. And if you care about offline-capable applications, the problem because even more acute: your clients are now a fully distributed system with their own state, and it's easier to write all the synchronization and recovery logic once, and run it everywhere on both clients and servers.
This is great feedback. Thank you.