[aikah]

why? PHP/ruby/python are successful too in the server space. Javascript,especially ES6, isn't worse than the formers. Devs should know by now that the dumbest tool that is good enough has good chances of being successful today. All these tech won't replace enterprise techs, but enterprise dev is a tiny percentage of all devs outthere.

[uptownJimmy]

"...enterprise dev is a tiny percentage of all devs outthere."

I may be terribly confused here, but I'm pretty sure this is the precise opposite of the facts. In terms of jobs, all the OSS languages TOGETHER are not as popular as Java alone, never mind adding in C#/.NET. It's a common misunderstanding, but one that seems unlikely to do a young coder any good...

[untog]

It's HN bias. Enterprise rarely gets talked about (because by its nature it rarely does cutting edge things) but is still the huge mass of the iceberg under the water.

[sanmon3186]

>enterprise dev is a tiny percentage of all devs outthere

I don't have specifics to quote but enterprise dev is definitely not a "tiny" percentage

[patsplat]

Large percentage in cost. Tiny percentage in ROI. Blue ocean for disintermediation.

[pjmlp]

> PHP/ruby/python are successful too in the server space.

Again, from the perspective of someone that worked in a startup using TCL for server applications, I also don't get it.

Other than being attractive to developers without formal education, and after a certain scale it becomes too costly to re-write.

The work we developed at that company teached me never to use a technology stack without a JIT or AOT compiler for production code.

The amount of money that Facebook has poured into PHP AOT compiler and now JIT is a proof of it, because it is just cheaper to improve the stack than re-write the code.

[awinder]

That's really all about how you structure things. If you're building small, distributed, API-oriented applications -- it's really very easy to re-write your infrastructure. If you're building large monolithic applications, with in-band communication only, you're right, it is pretty tough.

The "formal education" piece is a little rough though. Count me among the developers working with Node.JS and a university degree.

[vkjv]

> "...developers without a formal education..."

I think it's more about developers without experience. If you have experience doing something successfully, you are more likely to reach for the same tool set when doing it again. And someone who has done something successfully once is less likely to make naive mistakes when doing again.

I think most issues, like the ones in this article, are much more likely to be attributed to these two facts than to node.js as a language.

Contrived analogy: An experienced builder sets out to build a home. He grabs a Stanley hammer and successfully builds a home. Another person, who has never built anything, grabs a DeWalt hammer and fails miserably. Does this mean that only Stanley hammers are appropriate for building a house?

[jmagoon]

Seriously? You're saying that the only possible use case for ruby/python/php is "not being a computer scientist"?

[thawkins]

Node exists because it can, not because it should.

[zerr]

Also, language-wise, TypeScript seems much more interesting than Go.