"You lose expressiveness, you lose maintainability, you lose peace of mind"
Really, you found all that out after your experience...wait, what experience? You said yourself you failed to build a single simple app. So it seems to me you can only comment on expressiveness.
I'd love to read your review of, say, Haskell next. I have a feeling if you applied the same (lack of) rigor you demonstrated here, it would be double extra terrible. The point being, there's no substance here, but it confirms people's negative feelings about JavaScript, so they'll upvote it.
It's pretty easy to find alternatives to Node.js that are a lot more sound, a lot easier to work with, and a lot more performant if you need asynchronicity. You gain nothing save for the ability to use JS itself, for which the supposed benefits of sharing code are a total wash.
Node.js is async for people who don't actually know what they're doing, but are still willing to push an unnecessary boulder up the hill for the sake of a familiar language instead of learning how the industry's been handling async for the last few decades.
Node.js users "lack rigor", not this guy for questioning the ridiculousness of it all.
Go look at SFS/sfslite and its ilk to see how async is supposed to be done.
Actually, it's more like, "Write your web apps in Python/Clojure/Go/Java/Scala/Haskell/Erlang/C++/C/Common Lisp/Racket which all have better concurrency and async mechanisms than Node.js"
I was mentioning SFS/sfslite more as exemplars of clean ways to abstract asynchronicity than recommending C++ for web app development.
But you don't learn something like that if you don't learn to code without jQuery and npm packages.
> Node.js is async for people who don't actually know what they're doing
"Node.js is rubbish and if you like it and try to argue otherwise then, as I've already said, you don't know what you're doing so I can just ignore you."
Really, you found all that out after your experience...wait, what experience? You said yourself you failed to build a single simple app. So it seems to me you can only comment on expressiveness.
I'd love to read your review of, say, Haskell next. I have a feeling if you applied the same (lack of) rigor you demonstrated here, it would be double extra terrible. The point being, there's no substance here, but it confirms people's negative feelings about JavaScript, so they'll upvote it.