IBM article explaining why Tomcat and Apache are better then Node.js
ibm.com
ibm.com
There is too much inaccurate information in the article for it to be taken seriously. The author is bias and spreading misinformation.
My headline was meant to highlight the absurdity of the article.
... it's just not bootlicking enough for your tastes, right? Some of us actually consider it an enormous red flag when a community flogs some technology as superior to everything in every conceivable way, and starts burning heretics who suggest that perhaps there is some use case it isn't quite so good for at the stake. Such communities often end up actually destroying their own technology, because it turns out that being able to clearly see the weaknesses of your approach is a critical engineering skill. Every approach has weaknesses.
(Especially when said tech is less blazing a new trail than cruising down the smooth, well-maintained highway filled with fast food and gas stations.)
The best thing that could happen to Node is for the cult adherents to disappear.
"Currently, Node doesn't provide a default way to create dynamic pages."
"Yes, Node is a server program. However, it is definitely not like Apache or Tomcat. Those servers are stand-alone server products, ready to install and deploy applications instantly. You could be up and running with a server in a minute with these products. Node is definitely not this. Apache can add a PHP module to allow developers to create dynamic web pages, and programmers using Tomcat can deploy JSPs to create dynamic web pages. Node is definitely not this."
"Image file server A company that has a large distributed website (think Facebook or Flickr), could decide to devote entire boxes to simply serving up images. Node would be a good solution for this..."
Do I have to write up a full synopsis for you?
I don't see one either, am I missing something? http://nodejs.org/docs/v0.4.7/api/ (I do see one mentioned in "Recommended third-party modules" but that's not "default" or to use probably a better term, batteries-included.)
Node does not seem to be generally pitched as a framework to push out more templated page-oriented PHP-style web pages. Isn't this supposed to be most of the point of Node.js that it's meant for other use cases that are poorly-served by the page-oriented servers and frameworks?
And for that last one, while it is true Node wouldn't be my first choice I have seen sites based on Apache where I could see using Node.js to server images and do something else Node-y. Some common configurations of Apache can be really freaking heavyweight per-request before it even necessarily gets to your code, and using a separate server to serve up static assets is common. True, Node wouldn't be my first choice but I'm not sure it's necessarily a terrible choice.
The first one is true; like I said, it does have errors, and is generally poorly-written. But I think a lot of it is that he's writing from a perspective that you don't share, but not necessarily a wrong perspective.