> He said: "purity of non-blocking libraries" which has nothing to do with purity in the functional sense of the word
I'm sorry, but the word is bizarrely used here. I challenge you to find a single use of this word in this sense in the literature of our profession. I'd be surprised if you could. If he had not used that word, the sentance would have been clearer.
And it's not even true. A library could contain an infinite loop, which will do what blocking does.
> Huh? Why? How can anything not allow manual memory management?
Languages with closures and callbacks have a pretty damn hard time with explicit memory managment. And please note that he didn't say he wanted some explicit memory management features, he said he wished Javascript didn't have garbage collection (like C). This isn't, "I sure do wish I could manage some buffers."
> Very vague statements from his side; how can you claim he don't understand how it works?
Because Akka's and Erlang's dispatch model is inimical to the way Node.js does business.
I'm sorry, but the word is bizarrely used here. I challenge you to find a single use of this word in this sense in the literature of our profession. I'd be surprised if you could. If he had not used that word, the sentance would have been clearer.
And it's not even true. A library could contain an infinite loop, which will do what blocking does.
> Huh? Why? How can anything not allow manual memory management?
Languages with closures and callbacks have a pretty damn hard time with explicit memory managment. And please note that he didn't say he wanted some explicit memory management features, he said he wished Javascript didn't have garbage collection (like C). This isn't, "I sure do wish I could manage some buffers."
> Very vague statements from his side; how can you claim he don't understand how it works?
Because Akka's and Erlang's dispatch model is inimical to the way Node.js does business.