[erlang-questions] node.js vs erlang
Wed Jun 18 11:38:09 CEST 2014
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> wrote:
> Okay I wanted to skip this thread entirely but you mentioned Cowboy and
> said weird things about it so I'll bite.
> On 06/18/2014 09:39 AM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> comparing with cowboy, the differences are glaring. for instance, in the
>> "getting started" guide for cowboy:
>> * we live in the microwave popcorn and 10-minutes-is-a-long-video-on-
>> age. yet the first FOUR sections are not about cowboy at all, but talking
>> the modern web and how to learn erlang. as someone moderately familiar
>> the web, i don't care about this. *just let me get started already!* if
>> reading the getting started guide for cowboy, i probably don't need to be
>> on either the modern web OR erlang.
> I'm not sure why you call it a "getting started guide" all over your
> email. It's the user guide. It may have one "getting started" chapter, but
> its goal is not to get people started, but to be a complete guide. This
> includes not only practical examples but also theory. Why theory? Well
> everyone coming to Cowboy isn't a web developer, or even an Erlang
> developer. Some of my users were happy enough that these chapters were in
> the guide that they contacted me directly to tell me they liked them.
> If you are a web developer, then why are you reading these chapters? Do
> you read the documentation for every computer you buy? Do you need to learn
> how to put the power plug in to charge it? You probably don't need that.
> But some people do, and that's why we put these "obvious" things in the
> * being a good, modern developer with the attention span of the average
>> backyard squirrel i simply skipped straight to the "Getting Started"
>> the FIRST sentence is this:
>> "Setting up a working Erlang application is a little more complex than for
>> most other languages. The reason is that Erlang is designed to build
>> and not just simple applications."
>> ... aaaaaaaand cowboy just lost me as a user. i don't WANT complex,
>> and my
>> application IS simple. so cowboy is not for me! right?
> Well there's nothing we can do about that. We can't just write one file
> and run a program on it. That's simply not how Erlang works. We have to
> create an OTP application, compile, start the VM with the right paths etc.
> That's not just Cowboy deciding to be more complex than nodejs, that's how
> Erlang was designed.
> And while it's improving (you should have seen things 4 years ago when I
> started, the getting started in Cowboy is *immensely* simpler than it would
> have been then), it'll never be as simple as nodejs. Because most of the
> stuff in the getting started chapter is necessary as I'll explain in a bit.
> * the rest of the "getting started" walks me through doing a ton of
>> boilerplate stuff. it's nice to know how things work, but i'm a busy web
>> (have i mentioned my lack of attention span yet? oh look, a peanut! and
>> an event driven async peanut! yum! *runs off*). everything in that section
>> ought to be boiled down to "run this one simple command and everything is
>> for you. click here to read about the gory details." and doing so should
>> me a fully functional application template that i can immediately start.
>> one command should probably take a simple config file with things like
>> the app
>> name and other variable details (such as which erlang apps to include in
>> awesome new project, including but also in addition to cowboy).
>> basically, an
> The next erlang.mk version will make it a little easier by generating a
> base project (using templates, as you say). But that will not change the
> getting started chapter much, as we will still have to explain things.
> Instead of saying "create" it will say "edit", basically.
> It may sound like a lot for someone with as little attention span as you,
> but going through these steps saves you an immense amount of time later on.
> If Erlang beginners start using releases immediately, we win. They will not
> have to suffer going through hoops like we did to get to that point. They
> will not have to fiddle with paths, or make start scripts, or deal with
> complex deployment issues, or anything that we struggled with for years. It
> *is* a big step, and we probably can't reduce it much more, but it's an
> incredible time saver.
> But of course impatient people will prefer to waste their time by missing
> out on it.
> And to be honest if we weren't doing this then we would have to explain
> how to write a start function, start erl with the -s option and make a
> start script for frequent use. It wouldn't be simpler, it would just be
> different, and we would just miss an opportunity to teach beginners "the
> right way" from the start.
> oh, and bonus points if there is a file created just for route
>> definitions which
>> would then be automatically included by the foo_app.erl to be passed to
>> cowboy_router:compile. having a "well known" place to define routes will
>> standardize cowboy using applications and allow the starting dev to focus
>> what they care about (routes and handlers) while ignoring the details
>> like the
>> app module. yes, yes, eventually they'll likely want to dig into that as
>> but not at the beginning. (this is an area that cowboy+erlang could be
>> better than express+node.js)
> Cowboy isn't a Web framework. There's nothing to standardize. It's a thin
> HTTP layer implementing the various HTTP specs. That's it. Yes, routing is
> also part of the spec, as it is a way to map URIs to resources which is
> well covered by the spec.
> There's tons of Web frameworks built on top of Cowboy if you want
> standards. Everything in Cowboy is done by calling a function (or Cowboy
> calling one of your functions). The application module is simply the only
> place where you can run code at startup, so we have to cover it. Besides I
> don't see much difference between explaining how to run code in this module
> vs explaining the structure of a configuration file (it's harder to do the
> latter really).
> * i couldn't find the bragging section of the docs. ;) more seriously, the
>> getting started guide tries to sell me on the modern web and erlang's
>> place in
>> it, but how about a fun little one-pager that backs up the claims made in
>> main README: "Cowboy is a small, fast and modular HTTP server written in
>> Erlang." and " It is optimized for low latency and low memory usage".
>> show me
>> the money^Hmeasurements! a simple set of charts showing how many
>> connections can be handled and what kind of latencies app the developers
>> achieve on regular ol' hardware, along with a LOC-you-need-to-write-for-a-
>> barebones-app count would help convince people and would be the thing that
>> would get passed around on stackoverflow, g+, twitter, etc. when
>> justifying /
>> recommending cowboy.
> Would you believe me if I told you Cowboy is capable of handling millions
> of concurrent Websocket connections on a middle sized server, with *no
> impact* on latency? And would you believe me if I told you I do not have
> the slightest idea what the upper limit for the number of connections
> Cowboy can actually handle *is*? Because that's the truth.
> This is in large part due to Erlang, Cowboy mostly tries to be careful
> about memory use, and could do a better job at it.
> But still, how do you even brag about a difference that big with other
> platforms, and make people actually believe you?
> Besides, if you look at the benchmark of the week, they're still all
> focused on glorified "hello world" measuring requests per second. Cowboy
> obviously can't compete there, as these are won by JITs not by the
> underlaying code. Not to mention these benchmarks are the most misleading
> and useless kind you can ever write.
> Loïc Hoguin
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions