[smsm42]

nginx is much more simple than full-service servers like Apache. Which is good if you want to do something easy fast (like terminate TLS, proxy, load-balance, simple redirect, simple header munging, etc.). And not good if you want to do something more complex and get into learning how nginx rewrite rules really work (totally not obvious), how if and other predicates really work (multiple articles in docs suggest it's not obvious at all) and what limitations are needed to achieve the simplicity and quickness. So if you want your webserver to do something complex, you'd go for Apache. But may still put nginx in front for LB, static content, pre-cache TLS, etc.

[user5994461]

A good reason to use nginx (or better HAProxy), is to stop people from writing endless mess of redirect and rewrite rules.

[smsm42]

Not many people do it just for fun. Stopping people from doing what they need to achieve job being done is usually not the most productive idea.

[adrianratnapala]

What people need to do to get their job done is very, very, frequently to work around an existing mess with new hacks that make the mess even harder to clean up. And if that's what they need to do, then they should do it.

But we should also ask ourselves how to get into such messes less often. That is, how to systematically reduce the number of early-stage design errors. One trick is to choose tools that forbid known anti-patterns.

That means the designers must work harder up-front to figure out a system that can do without the work-arounds. But that is a feature, not a bug; indeed that is what our processes should try to achieve.

[user5994461]

There are very few justified usages that require to write maze of rewrite rules.

Most people do it because they have no idea what they are doing and they never decided on a naming convention for their apps and domains.

[Something1234]

What are some justified uses of rewrite rules?

[tyingq]

Making broken links pointing at your site work (301), without breaking links to the correct URL.

Especially links on sites you have no control over.

[ag_47]

Fair point, but,

> if you want your webserver to do something complex, you'd go for Apache

I would tend to disagree. Assuming "complex" = "business logic", Apache hardly seems the right choice. PHP/Python/Node/GoLang or Lua right inside nginx would be more appropriate in most cases, imo.

[smsm42]

There are degrees of complexity, there's a kind of spectrum even. If you want a full-blown business logic that requires language like PHP or Go, it's insane to try and make Apache do it. If you need a set of simple rules that are within what Apache (including there all the module ecosystem) can and is designed to do, it would be a big mistake, costing a lot of scalability, to deploy high-level language instead. Right tool for the job, always.

[ag_47]

> if you want your webserver to do something complex, you'd go for Apache

> a set of simple rules that are within what Apache (including there all the module ecosystem) can and is designed to do

[smsm42]

Again, there are degrees of complexity. Very simple - nginx, kinda more complex - Apache, somewhat complex but still doable without using Turning-complete language - third-party Apache modules, needs Turing-complete language or you're wasting your time - Python/PHP/Perl/pick your poison.