|
|
|
|
|
by ma2rten
4833 days ago
|
|
So instead of guessing, let's implement that corrected version of the node.js application and run the benchmark again. As other comments pointed already out, the main flaw in this post is NOT that the node.js implementation is not as efficient as it could be. It is that the author choosed to benchmark a CPU intensive task, as opposed to an IO intensive one. This is not what node.js is good at nor what it is typically used for. That is something that can not be fixed without creating an entirely new benchmark. I certainly wouldn't use some benchmark I'm too lazy to reproduce as a basis for selecting the technology to use. However, it is good to have a general idea how different technologies compare. If for example you were to decide whether to learn node.js or C#, a benchmark like this might be one datapoint you could use. One of the succesfactors of the Silicon Valley startup culture is open and honest feedback, even if it is sometimes not what you want to hear. There is not a culture of: "Do it better yourself, before you criticize others". |
|
suddenly you can't use httplistener anymore and you have build an httpmodule for iis. so now you either build your own handler or use one of the existing ones.
i guess if you build your own isapi extension it's probably not very bad, but if you go through the asp.net "stack" it suddenly becomes a whole different story.