|
|
|
|
|
|
by epicide
3170 days ago
|
|
|
Sure, anything taken to an extreme is bad. I wasn't suggesting to do that. I think if there is a sensible use-case for parallel computing in JS, it would be good to have. However, trying to make a solution before we have a (clear) problem is foolish. I'm not saying there isn't already a use-case, but I haven't seen one that isn't already covered by languages better suited to solving those problems (e.g. Rust). Edit to give a different example: parallel computing in JS is like trying to write a web framework in Rust. Sure, you can do it, but Node is already better suited to doing that. At best, you're making a worse version of something that already exists. |
|
|
I agree with you, but my point is it's not black and white. For a sufficiently small or simple project, it might make sense to write a web backend in Rust, or do parallel computing in JS, if the cost of learning a new platform outweighs the cost of using the "wrong tool".
In most circumstances, yes, you probably shouldn't use Node.js for parallel computing tasks, just like you shouldn't use C++ for web development, but for some use cases it might be useful. And maybe those use cases don't exist (I don't have much experience in this area, so I don't know), but I just don't like when blanket statements like "use the right tool for the job" dismiss the work other people have done. Surely if Microsoft created this, they have a use case in mind for it?