Donning asbestos longjohns...

Yesterday my title with Packt Publications, Reactive Programming with JavaScript. It isn't really a Node.js-centric title; early chapters are intended to cover theory, and later code-heavy chapters cover practice. Because I didn't really think it would be appropriate to fail to give readers a webserver, Node.js seemed by far the obvious choice. The case was closed before it was even opened.

I could have given a very rosy view of my experience with Node.js. Instead I was honest about good points and bad points I encountered.

Let me include a few quotes that are relevant here:

Warning: Node.js and its ecosystem are hot--hot enough to burn you badly! When I was a teacher’s assistant in math, one of the non-obvious suggestions I was told was not to tell a student that something was “easy.” The reason was somewhat obvious in retrospect: if you tell people something is easy, someone who doesn’t see a solution may end up feeling (even more) stupid, because not only do they not get how to solve the problem, but the problem they are too stupid to understand is an easy one! There are gotchas that don’t just annoy people coming from Python / Django, which immediately reloads the source if you change anything. With Node.js, the default behavior is that if you make one change, the old version continues to be active until the end of time or until you manually stop and restart the server. This inappropriate behavior doesn’t just annoy Pythonistas; it also irritates native Node.js users who provide various workarounds. The StackOverflow question “Auto-reload of files in Node.js” has, at the time of this writing, over 200 upvotes and 19 answers; an edit directs the user to a nanny script, node-supervisor, with homepage at http://tinyurl.com/reactjs-node-supervisor. This problem affords new users with great opportunity to feel stupid because they thought they had fixed the problem, but the old, buggy behavior is completely unchanged. And it is easy to forget to bounce the server; I have done so multiple times. And the message I would like to give is, “No, you’re not stupid because this behavior of Node.js bit your back; it’s just that the designers of Node.js saw no reason to provide appropriate behavior here. Do try to cope with it, perhaps taking a little help from node-supervisor or another solution, but please don’t walk away feeling that you’re stupid. You’re not the one with the problem; the problem is in Node.js’s default behavior.” This section, after some debate, was left in, precisely because I don't want to give an impression of “It’s easy.” I cut my hands repeatedly while getting things to work, and I don’t want to smooth over difficulties and set you up to believe that getting Node.js and its ecosystem to function well is a straightforward matter and if it’s not straightforward for you too, you don’t know what you’re doing. If you don’t run into obnoxious difficulties using Node.js, that’s wonderful. If you do, I would hope that you don’t walk away feeling, “I’m stupid—there must be something wrong with me.” You’re not stupid if you experience nasty surprises dealing with Node.js. It’s not you! It’s Node.js and its ecosystem!

The Appendix, which I did not really want after the rising crescendo in the last chapters and the conclusion, talks about what I was able to find in the ecosystem, and provided a workaround for moronic literalism:

Another database that seemed like a perfect fit, and may yet be redeemable, is a server-side implementation of the HTML5 key-value store. This approach has the cardinal advantage of an API that most good front-end developers understand well enough. For that matter, it’s also an API that most not-so-good front-end developers understand well enough. But with the node-localstorage package, while dictionary-syntax access is not offered (you want to use localStorage.setItem(key, value) or localStorage.getItem(key), not localStorage[key]), the full localStorage semantics are implemented, including a default 5MB quota—WHY? Do server-side JavaScript developers need to be protected from themselves? For client-side database capabilities, a 5MB quota per website is really a generous and useful amount of breathing room to let developers work with it. You could set a much lower quota and still offer developers an immeasurable improvement over limping along with cookie management. A 5MB limit doesn’t lend itself very quickly to Big Data client-side processing, but there is a really quite generous allowance that resourceful developers can use to do a lot. But on the other hand, 5MB is not a particularly large portion of most disks purchased any time recently, meaning that if you and a website disagree about what is reasonable use of disk space, or some site is simply hoggish, it does not really cost you much and you are in no danger of a swamped hard drive unless your hard drive was already too full. Maybe we would be better off if the balance were a little less or a little more, but overall it’s a decent solution to address the intrinsic tension for a client-side context. However, it might gently be pointed out that when you are the one writing code for your server, you don’t need any additional protection from making your database more than a tolerable 5MB in size. Most developers will neither need nor want tools acting as a nanny and protecting them from storing more than 5MB of server-side data. And the 5MB quota that is a golden balancing act on the client-side is rather a bit silly on a Node.js server. (And, for a database for multiple users such as is covered in this Appendix, it might be pointed out, slightly painfully, that that’s not 5MB per user account unless you create a separate database on disk for each user account; that’s 5MB shared between all user accounts together. That could get painful if you go viral!) The documentation states that the quota is customizable, but an email a week ago to the developer asking how to change the quota is unanswered, as was the StackOverflow question asking the same. The only answer I have been able to find is in the Github CoffeeScript source, where it is listed as an optional second integer argument to a constructor. So that’s easy enough, and you could specify a quota equal to a disk or partition size. But besides porting a feature that does not make sense, the tool’s author has failed completely to follow a very standard convention of interpreting 0 as meaning “unlimited” for a variable or function where an integer is to specify a maximum limit for some resource use. The best thing to do with this misfeature is probably to specify that the quota is Infinity:

if (typeof localStorage === 'undefined' || localStorage === null) { var LocalStorage = require('node-localstorage').LocalStorage; localStorage = new LocalStorage(__dirname + '/localStorage', Infinity); }

Swapping two comments in order: