Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Adds Node.js Support To Visual Studio

timothy posted about a year ago | from the could-be-the-biggest-open-source-company dept.

Programming 197

shutdown -p now writes "Coming from the team that had previously brought you Python Tools for Visual Studio, Microsoft has announced Node.js Tools for Visual Studio, with the release of the first public alpha. NTVS is the official extension for Visual Studio that adds support for Node.js, including editing with Intellisense, debugging, profiling, and the ability to deploy Node.js websites to Windows Azure. An overview video showcases the features, and Scott Hanselman has a detailed walkthrough. The project is open source under Apache License 2.0. While the extension is published by Microsoft, it is a collaborative effort involving Microsoft, Red Gate (which previously had a private beta version of similar product called Visual Node), and individual contributors from the Node.js community."

cancel ×

197 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Visual Studio... (3, Funny)

fisted (2295862) | about a year ago | (#45483821)

...does it even Clippy?

Won't purchase without.

Just what the nodejs (5, Funny)

stewsters (1406737) | about a year ago | (#45483843)

I'm sure the NodeJs hipsters running the latest flavor of Linux with custom desktops will close out their sublime text and immediately wget that.

Re:Just what the nodejs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45483863)

but is wget ready for granny?

Re:Just what the nodejs (1)

pieisgood (841871) | about a year ago | (#45483879)

If I had the mod points.....
This describes my friend perfectly. I will say though, he's a way better programmer than I am.

Re:Just what the nodejs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45483991)

So... what do you Slashdotters think of my disease-ridden, asshole-seeking IPod?

Re:Just what the nodejs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484135)

> So... what do you Slashdotters think of my disease-ridden, asshole-seeking IPod?

No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.

Re:Just what the nodejs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484031)

Microsoft has been fairly involved in Node for some time now...they had a pretty large presence at NodeConf when I went about 18 months ago. But even if Node developers don't want to use Windows or VisualStudio, the fact that they've open sourced it could lead to the development of better IDEs that Node developers do want to use.

Re:Just what the nodejs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484349)

Well, Ceylon 1.0.0 just came out about a week ago and has great IDE, js, and node.js support, although it is not "pure" node.js. So I guess that already happened?

Re: Just what the nodejs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484403)

MS also has been helping Java with own jvm. Is this also a kiss of death...

Re:Just what the nodejs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484401)

Well I was about to, but now the mood is ruined so I'll curl it instead.

Spoilsport.

Re:Just what the nodejs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484405)

They'll do that once Microsoft buys out Sublime and closes it.

Re:Just what the nodejs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484611)

I had to look up what "sublime text" was, and I must say I'm not impressed.

I use an old copy of Crimson Editor (v 3.70, before it became "emerald editor" and pioneered the whole ALL CAPS MENUS AND TABS thing, long before Microsoft copied it). Sublime just isn't as good (hell, neither is Notepad++ or Emerald). Crimson has as many project-level features as any of the others, and it has that one "killer app" that nothing else does quite as well: column editing mode. I've never found a column-style editor as good as Crimson's. It's a godsend when converting huge spreadsheets into SQL insert statements, which I have to do quite frequently in my line of work.

Hipsters can keep it. I'll keep on truckin' with Crimson.

Re:Just what the nodejs (2)

tibman (623933) | about a year ago | (#45484877)

Column mode like when you do alt+shift+up/down?

Re:Just what the nodejs (3, Informative)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year ago | (#45485149)

Or Visual Studio's holding down ALT while selecting a block, or textpad's block mode?

Re:Just what the nodejs (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#45484833)

Microsoft has been scaling back the use of ASP.net internally. The groups I've talk to use it mostly to talk to the database, and do everything else in Javascript.

Apparently there are some groups at Microsoft who have gone all the way and are now using Javascript everywhere.

Re:Just what the nodejs (2)

batkiwi (137781) | about a year ago | (#45485059)

It depends on what you mean by "asp.net".

Over the last 3 years asp.net has evolved from "gui controls you compose on a page with TONS of overhead" to "a lightweight framework that looks a LOT like spring". What most people who have used asp.net in the last 10-12 years think of as asp.net is basically dead.

http://www.asp.net/web-api [asp.net] for example. Many people us this and knockoutjs for dotnet based web projects.

heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45483865)

Microsoft adopts my least favorite free software project. No harm no foul.

node.js.Extend.too ? (1, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#45483891)

Does anybody have dollars to bet against my donuts that they will require the use of proprietary keywords and extensions?

Doing anything else would be so bizarre for Microsoft.

Re:node.js.Extend.too ? (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about a year ago | (#45484027)

If it was compiling down to .NET, there would probably be some completely optional extensions to make use of the .NET framework (mostly, adding interoperability with other .NET languages). As is, I don't even know about that. I have no particular use for Node.JS myself, but I do like having more languages and frameworks supported in VS.

Re:node.js.Extend.too ? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#45484283)

There is no proprietary keywords and extensions involved here. It works with the standard V8-based Node.js implementation from http://nodejs.org./ [nodejs.org.] In fact, that doesn't even come in the box, so you have to download and install it separately.

Re:node.js.Extend.too ? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#45484513)

That's the 'embrace' part. They have been a little better about standards lately though, so you never know.

Re:node.js.Extend.too ? (5, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#45484567)

(disclosure: I am a developer on PTVS and NTVS team)

I would hope that the track record of our particular team with Python Tools would speak for itself here - it's been out there for two years now, with 2.0 released last month, and it was and remains all about standard Python. While it does support IronPython, for example (but also Jython, PyPy, and other third party implementations), CPython remains the primary target because that's what the community uses, and our goal is to attract developers from said community to VS, Azure, and other Microsoft platforms and products, not to hijack their language/framework of choice.

The story with NTVS is similar: it's all about making VS a compelling choice for Node.js developers without forcing a Microsoft-top-to-bottom stack on them (which no-one would accept, and rightly so). In that sense, it is in line with Azure offering Linux VMs, or the ability to write Node.js-based Azure push notification services for Windows and Windows Phone.

Re:node.js.Extend.too ? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#45484617)

Yes, your team has a great track record, but unfortunately Microsoft has the worst in the business, or at least very close to it. You've got to expect some suspicion.

Re:node.js.Extend.too ? (5, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#45484703)

Sure, karma is a bitch. In fact, part of what we're trying to do as a team is to turn it around, both the external perception as well as internal company understanding on openness - not just open source, though that as well, but generally working together on common things, and purging the NIH and the "we must be in charge" syndrome.

It's not just us, too - it has been a growing thing in the developer division, in general, with a lot more stuff being open sourced, and a broad change of attitude from a single monolithic take-it-or-leave-it stack, to going where the people already are and supporting what they already do. You might have noticed some other glimpses of that if you've been following the general news on MS dev story, e.g. with a renewed effort on C++ standard conformance, or a lot more attention to JS and HTML5.

Re:node.js.Extend.too ? (3, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#45484761)

The developers may want to have a word with the legal/patent department if they're looking for goodwill from the developer community at large. What Microsoft is doing with the Android patents is up there with SCO. They also teamed up with Appple as 'Rockstar' for some of the worst patent abuse around, and lobbied against the current patent reforms. It's going to be a big job.

Re:node.js.Extend.too ? (1)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year ago | (#45485177)

Not nearly as bad as what Google/Motorola have been doing with theirs, namely h.264 crap.

Re:node.js.Extend.too ? (1)

mwehle (2491950) | about a year ago | (#45484315)

Does anybody have dollars to bet against my donuts that they will require the use of proprietary keywords and extensions?

Doing anything else would be so bizarre for Microsoft.

I think you've got this backwards. If you are sure that Microsoft will require the use of proprietary keywords and extensions then it is you who will be willing to wager dollars, and you will only require doughnuts to back the opposing position.

Just what we needed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45483893)

...more crapps!

Stop with JavaScript (2, Interesting)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about a year ago | (#45483917)

Please, for everyone's sanity, stop it with the JavaScript crap; it's a terrible language, a terrible platform for applications, and supporting it is just prolonging it's Reign of Terror. (this is why we still have flash).

Re:Stop with JavaScript (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45483985)

When you get all browser makers to agree on a new language to use we can stop with JavaScript.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about a year ago | (#45484013)

No, we shouldn't build applications in browsers in the first place.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484073)

Convince everyone to go back to 1993 then.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484335)

The performance and capabilities of these browser applications feel like they're from 1993, but yet they require 100x the resources of a modern desktop program.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45484323)

Oh yeah, good idea. Let's just be rid of this whole Internet thing, and all the crap people put on it.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484451)

It is a good idea. They should write their fuckin' apps in a programming language that isn't an absolute piece of shit.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

tibman (623933) | about a year ago | (#45485023)

no problem! i'll send you some binaries you can run to access my site. It's safe, TRUST ME.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (4, Insightful)

OhPlz (168413) | about a year ago | (#45484993)

Oh yeah, good idea. Let's just be rid of this whole Internet thing, and all the crap people put on it.

WWW != Internet

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45485191)

Yes, okay, we can worry about that couple percentage of traffic some other time.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (5, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year ago | (#45484547)

Well, duh, the point is not having to port/compile native apps for all platforms. With Javascript you just write one web app that is 100% compatible on all platforms, OSes, and browsers! Man... I thought I could keep a straight face while typing that but I give up.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about a year ago | (#45484683)

yeah! when i want to fill in a form i want to download an executable rather than piddle around with this javascript crap! hell the internet should just be replaced with an app store!

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about a year ago | (#45484879)

Forms on webpages have been around since at least HTML 2.0, in 1995.

Or, for a cynical twist on your post:
yeah! when i want to fill in a form i want to download a script that my browser will execute in a virtual machine rather than piddle around with this html crap! hell the internet should just be replaced with untrusted executable code!

Oh wait. That already happened. Fuck you and the executable webpage you rode in on.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45485093)

No, we shouldn't build applications in browsers in the first place.

You're right. Everything would be so much simpler if we all just downloaded Win32 fat clients anytime we wanted to have any sort of interactive content on the Internet.

No more browser headaches (everything would look and work the same on every Windows PC!) and no more security vulnerabilities (If the exe was compromised, Norton would take care of it!)

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484125)

Get them to agree to implement Dart :)

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about a year ago | (#45484407)

I had to do some JavaScript at work and talked them into letting me use Dart instead; unfortunately, Dart isn't perfect either (get rid of the dynamic typing and get Dart VM support (instead of it running dart2js) and get it out of beta and it would probably be a lot better. It's definitely a step in the right direction but still too dynamic for me. I prefer structure.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

tiagosousa (1931172) | about a year ago | (#45484729)

Good news: it *is* out of beta! [slashdot.org] Sadly, it'll be years, if ever, before we see dart VM in browsers outside of google (I'm sure it'll come to chrome soon, now that they declared dart is production-ready.)

Regarding dynamic typing, don't forget it has static type annotations, too. I was a bit suspicious at first but now it's one of my favorite features of dart. On the one hand, the annotations give a peace of mind because everything is checked at compile-time. On the other, sometimes it's useful to be able do just declare a dynamic var to speed up prototyping, or because it's a minor thing and its type is completely irrelevant, and it just works. Best of both worlds, in my opinion.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#45484855)

What you really want is PNaCl [chromium.org] . LLVM bitcode running sandboxed in the browser at native speed is the pinnacle of client-side scripting - you are not limited in your choice of languages and frameworks at all; if you want to script in C, you're welcome to do so, and if you prefer some high-level dynamic language like JS or Python, then you just run the corresponding VM in the sandbox.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

tiagosousa (1931172) | about a year ago | (#45484493)

Of course crying for the end of javascript is a lost cause at this time. But back on topic, node.js is supposed to run in the server, so it doesn't need browsers to agree on anything. Yes, I understand the sinergy of using the same language in both client and server, but it doesn't excuse the fact that javascript is perfectly avoidable server-side. From that perspective, I actually agree with him.

JavaScript, its better than a kick in the head. (4, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | about a year ago | (#45484009)

If you know of a better client side web scripting language that has wide spread browser support, we are listening.

nothing? Yeah, I thought so....

Re:JavaScript, its better than a kick in the head. (2, Informative)

Tridus (79566) | about a year ago | (#45484223)

Not really sure what that has to do with Node.js applications deployed to something like Azure. How many browsers are going to be running that?

I know I can think of things I'd rather do than inflict Javascript on myself in more places than I have to.

Re:JavaScript, its better than a kick in the head. (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year ago | (#45484499)

ActionScript! ;)

Re:JavaScript, its better than a kick in the head. (3, Insightful)

devent (1627873) | about a year ago | (#45484851)

If the W3C would make a byte code standard to access the DOM then nobody would use JavaScript and rather port any other language to use the byte code. Much like for the JavaVM there are numerous languages available (about 25 languages), for example C, Python, Ruby, and new languages like Scala, Groovy, (and about 30 other languages). The JavaScript code is compiled and re-arranged for faster execution to a byte code language that is run under a Virtual Machine anyway.

The question of whether I know a better client side web language is moot because there ain't no choice. Other then of course plug-ins or add-ons to the browser. It's like asking is there any better gaming operation system then Windows... (at least I can install Linux and run some Linux games that are better then Windows games).

Re:JavaScript, its better than a kick in the head. (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about a year ago | (#45484911)

Server side scripting.

There was a day when web servers were expected to do the heavy lifting instead of offloading everything to client browsers. And somehow, they were able to afford this kind of outrageous web server horsepower without inundating visitors with advertising.

We've come a long way.

Re:JavaScript, its better than a kick in the head. (1)

ADRA (37398) | about a year ago | (#45485081)

Who said anything about client-side? Nod.js is server side JS, which IMHO is pretty dumb unless you're doing it for user front facing DSL's (which its awesome for).

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | about a year ago | (#45484039)

"please don't make me learn how to use Javascript properly"

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#45484141)

Yeah, that C-to-JS compiler is a pain to work with, please don't make me.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about a year ago | (#45484391)

Yeah, it's so great that it'll allow you to just decide to use some member variable somewhere without declaring it and making it impossible for someone maintaining it to know that it even exists. Or the fact that there's no way to know the type of a variable without basically reverse engineering the source code in its entirety.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484473)

JavaScript will certainly let you shoot yourself in the foot if you're careless, but it's nowhere NEAR the foot-gun that C is.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (3, Informative)

royallthefourth (1564389) | about a year ago | (#45484799)

it's so great that it'll allow you to just decide to use some member variable somewhere without declaring it

Undeclared variables are implicitly global. A code inspector will warn you about mistakes like that!

there's no way to know the type of a variable

It should be clear from the way it's used or by the documentation (if it exists). This is true of not only Javascript, but every dynamic language. If that's not good enough, use one of the readily-available and straightforward debuggers. Another quick approach is to just console.log(var)

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

vux984 (928602) | about a year ago | (#45485029)

Work arounds to flaws in the language do not make it a better language.

It should be clear from the way it's used

Except when it isn't.

or by the documentation (if it exists)

You know it won't.

This is true of not only Javascript, but every dynamic language.

JavaScript is worse than others. In part because its used by some of the lowest common denenominator programmers. "script kids who copy-pasta shit together".

You don't give people with the least discipline or skill at programming a language that has the least rules. Yes, it makes programming something that "works" easier. But it does so by making the programs themselves unmaintainable garbage.

Its not a bad language per se, but its a terrible language for the role it gained dominance in.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45485203)

"use strict"

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#45484239)

it's a terrible language

Yeah? It has many of the language features of a first class dynamic language. There are better languages, but what is it about JavaScript as a language (I don't care what you think about how it's used on specific websites) that you find objectional.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about a year ago | (#45484365)

1. Being dynamic

Re:Stop with JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484485)

So... if I'm understanding... you want a language that isn't dynamic?

Re:Stop with JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484613)

1. dynamic
2. stupid
3. functions are not objects. don't pretend that they are
4. objects are not functions. wtf.
5. proto does not inheritance make
6. single threaded
7. it runs in a browser, and that's enough. don't run it on a server, really.
8. null vs undefined - for fucks sakes, just make up your mind

Re:Stop with JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484823)

There are a number of reasons. Admittedly, the language has a lot of quirks (this [destroyallsoftware.com] shows a few). But so so other languages. I think the bad rap js gets comes down to three things.

1) It's a prototype based language but people expect it to behave like a class based language.
2) The DOM. (which isn't the language's fault).
3) traditionally, a lot of JS code is often copy pasted from various sources and hacked together to mostly work by people that have no business being a programmer.

Speaking of tradition, the old days of browser incompatibility during the IE vs Netscape wars didn't help it's reputation much.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45485025)

1. Dynamic
2. Prototype-based objects
3. Extremely shitty design that makes optimizing it very hard (see 1)
4. browser support. I shouldn't NEED a large library to abstract away the browser just to do simple things like set styles.

Anyone using node.js is just stupid. There is absolutely 0 reason to use javascript for anything unless you *must*. Trying to move it from the only vaguely cross-platform browser language to some sort of actual runtime? Fuck that. Node.js is a warning flag that you've already made bad decisions.

Re:Stop with JavaScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484773)

Please, for everyone's sanity, stop it with the JavaScript crap; it's a terrible language, a terrible platform for applications, and supporting it is just prolonging it's Reign of Terror. (this is why we still have flash).

I know there are a ton of responses to this already, so I probably don't have a lot of chance of being modded up. That said...

Please give JavaScript a try.

Just a year ago, I held a similar to view to your own.
JavaScript was just a toy language. Nice for adding special effects to a web page.
I saw some interesting toys built in the browser, but I would never have called JavaScript a 'real' programming language.

I'm not sure what made me consider Node.js; I probably saw it in some Slashdot article.
I downloaded the thing and gave it a shot. Now I am absolutely hooked.

After a decade of writing in various assembly languages,
followed by a decade of writing C/C++,
followed by a decade of writing Java,
I will unashamedly admit, CoffeeScript is now my favorite programming language and Node.js is now my favorite platform.

I learned the ropes with the book Smashing Node.js [amazon.com] .
If you enjoy writing software, I humbly suggest giving it a try.

Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45483969)

Unfreaking believable.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

Tridus (79566) | about a year ago | (#45484205)

But Node.js is the trendy new thing!

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484573)

It was in 2008. Not anymore. NodeJs is an old fart right now. Nobody really cares about it except the slow hipsters.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

bmajik (96670) | about a year ago | (#45484209)

Visual Studio is a huge organization, and only a subset of people work on the C compiler.

The people behind VS C89 work and Node.js are entirely different people, with different funding and business justifications.

I work on VS LightSwitch. I never talk to the C compiler team about anything.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45484505)

What? There still is an C compiler team for VS? I thought they mostly just dragged the same C compiling engine from version to version, possibly just doing minor adaptations to keep it working with the newest VS.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#45484781)

Yeah that's what I came here to say. There are some parts of c99 that would take a week or so to implement, and yet they still haven't done them......

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#45484875)

Can you give an example of something in C99 that is not in VS 2013, and that would take a week or so to implement?

The only things that aren't there that I can think of off the top of my head are VLAs and "restricted", and both are fairly major features (well, unless you are okay with a no-op "restricted", but you can have that already by #defining it to expand to a blank string).

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45485071)

Do they have stdint.h now? Or are you still supposed to ifdef on MSVC and typedef unsigned __int32 to uint32_t?

How about conforming to C89's strict aliasing rules? Restricted pointers? They have that under __restrict, but again, you have to #define if you want to use restrict with MSVC code.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#45484227)

C89 doesn't web scale.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484383)

Neither does javascript. The language has literally zero support for multi-threading or other parallel processing.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

jomama717 (779243) | about a year ago | (#45484821)

No multi-threading is kind of the point with nodeJS. It's a different approach than your normal "servlet" where you're firing up new threads for every request and sharing a pool of database connections between them. In this model you run a nodeJS listener and it uses a simple event loop, just like in the browser. If you want to scale you spin up 50 more node instances and slap them behind a load balancing proxy. They are all typically hitting a highly scalable nosql datasource on the backend, which can also easily spin up another 50 instances if needed.

I've dabbled, it is definitely fun for little side projects but I haven't tried to do anything major league with it - in any case, don't knock anything until you try it. For giggles try creating a large searchable data set using elasticsearch and nodejs running behind apache proxies, one hour into it when you have a working site you'll see the appeal.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484929)

I did this over a decade and a half ago with I/O completion ports. kqueue and epoll offer the same thing. People simply don't bother to learn the proper techniques when they first come, and then instead latch on to whatever trendy reinvention of the wheel that gets enough buzz.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

jomama717 (779243) | about a year ago | (#45485039)

Interesting - it has occurred to me that a lot of these "new" fangled frameworks and such really are just a return to concepts and practices from the past - didn't know what the historic analog of this nodeJS (and the like) stuff was. Thanks.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484943)

Yeah, but the callback model is incredibly ugly. In Lua I can do precisely what Node.js does--juggle thousands of simultaneous connections--but at least be able use a normal flow of control via the use of coroutines.

See, for example, http://www.25thandclement.com/~william/projects/cqueues.html

Which also supports spinning up kernel threads in the same process, so that you can scale to multiple CPUs on a single server without having to run multiple different instances.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

jomama717 (779243) | about a year ago | (#45485091)

I'll check that out. Agreed that shitloads of nested anonymous handler functions is ugly as hell... and seems to be were most complex javascript leads. I'm not a huge proponent of node or anything, but I do think it has its uses.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#45484351)

There are many teams in Microsoft. The one that does Node.js (which is also the one that did Python) is different from the one that does Visual C++.

That said, so far as I know, Visual C++ is C89-conformant. Did you mean C99? If so, they're working on it - in fact, VS 2013 includes most of C99 standard library, as well as _Bool, compound literals and designated initializers.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45484527)

By the way Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] that VS is C90 compliant (woohoo, what an improvement...). Anyway, if someone believes that is wrong, feel free to fix the article. :)

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#45484583)

C90 is the same thing as C89 (it was originally ANSI C89, later adopted as ISO C90).

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45484655)

Oh, okay.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45485113)

They are wrong.
The following SHOULD be undefined behavior according to c89's strict aliasing rules

float f=1;
long L = *((long*)&float);
L|=0x80000000;
assert( f == -1);

Strict aliasing allows the compiler to assume that L and f are not using the same memory location, and thus reorder/inline/whatever the code. It allows C to access data as fast as fortran does, but they don't implement it because it would break code like the above.

Re:Node.js?! How 'bout C89 support? (2)

khr (708262) | about a year ago | (#45484389)

How 'bout C89 support?

For that matter, how about C64 support? And small enough to fit on floppy disks...

Pearls before swine. (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about a year ago | (#45484495)

Kind of pointless to post this here, you'll mostly just get bad jokes from ca. 2002.

Oh, does it have clippy?! (desperate gaze around room to see who's lauging)

Pfft, they'll probably embrace and extinguish it lolzerlolzers haha lolzers!

Oh, where's monkey boy to announce it! Terr heerrrrp!

What about Powershell ? (1)

slincolne (1111555) | about a year ago | (#45484577)

Isn't it strange that there is a group within Microsoft that can turn out such great tools for for languages developed outside, but where they are touting Powershell as a strategic tool you are stuck with a toolset that lives back in the 80s ?

Why can't Microsoft put out a Visual Studio plugin for Powershell with full intellisense, breakpointing, inspections, etc. ?

Sad :-(

Re:What about Powershell ? (4, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#45484775)

Why can't Microsoft put out a Visual Studio plugin for Powershell with full intellisense, breakpointing, inspections, etc. ?

We don't need to - someone else already did that [microsoft.com] .

Keep in mind that we're a relatively small group - 6 developers/testers (we all do both) and 1 project manager, covering two projects already (PTVS and NTVS). We can only do so much. Then again, that's precisely why the code for both products is open source - so that people can take it and use it as a foundation for similar products for other languages. Here [microsoft.com] is one more for PHP, for example.

Sort of deserve each other, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484623)

Okay, so if you use a slow scripting language as your web server, you might as well use a slow, bloated IDE to develop it? It's JavaScript - you don't need Visual anything.

And I actually speak from authority on this one - after decades of using Emacs to make web sites, I had a run-in with ASP.NET in Visual Studio, and SUDDENLY I had satori about why most web sites are slow and don't work properly. The horror is beyond words to describe. It's actually designed to be slow! I was amazed by the "postback" stuff. Every time you do something, you take a round-trip to the server.

Re:Sort of deserve each other, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45484673)

http://zgadzaj.com/benchmarking-nodejs-basic-performance-tests-against-apache-php [zgadzaj.com]

"As the above tests show, node is fast. Really fast. Much faster than Apache - many more requests per second, higher transfer rate with much smaller number of failed requests at the same time. Really shining.

"Obviously it is more hungry for system's CPU and memory, but this should not be surprising considering its performance.

"What needs to be kept in mind though is that everything really depends on what you want to use Node for. As already said in many places, Node is not something that should replace Apache everywhere."

How to revert the uppercase menus (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45484645)

Ok, here's a cool little tip that many will enjoy. A couple of days ago I discovered that there is actually a registry setting [msdn.com] to turn off the silly uppercase menus. Enjoy.

While we are at it, can we also have a SuppressDamnSlowStartupAndSluggishUserInterface flag? The other day a teacher of mine intended to open a C file which was part of MicroC/OS-II, into Notepad++. However VS owned the filetype association and the guy was like "aarrrgghhh...how can I make this stop??" when VS fired up and was running that "Loading components..." bar forever and it couldn't be terminated.

Re:How to revert the uppercase menus (1)

JLennox (942693) | about a year ago | (#45484699)

That's like taking a harrier jet to your mailbox and complaining the engines take forever to warm up.

If you want to peek the contents of a text file, open it in a text editor. It'll be a while when using xcode^H^H^H^Heclipse^H^H^H^H^H^Hvisual studio.

Also, SSD.

Re:How to revert the uppercase menus (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year ago | (#45484803)

VS loads very slow the first time you run it after installing (because it runs first-time initialization code for all packages), and also after installing a new package. But, once primed, it should be pretty fast. Not as fast as Notepad++ or something similarly lightweight, but no more than a few seconds, and certainly no eternal progress bars.

VS2013 (1)

Cammi (1956130) | about a year ago | (#45484865)

Now if only Microsoft can provide downloads on MSDN for VS2013 that isn't corrupt ..... might be to much to hope

Not for everyone (1)

codepigeon (1202896) | about a year ago | (#45484909)

It looks like this is only supported on VS2012 and VS2013 Premium (and up) editions.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?