mjijackson

I was curious, so I actually ran both of the servers from the article on my little MacBook Air. The results are below.

First, go:

    $ ab -c 100 -n 10000 http://localhost:8000/
    This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $>
    Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/
    Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/

    Benchmarking localhost (be patient)
    Completed 1000 requests
    Completed 2000 requests
    Completed 3000 requests
    Completed 4000 requests
    Completed 5000 requests
    Completed 6000 requests
    Completed 7000 requests
    Completed 8000 requests
    Completed 9000 requests
    Completed 10000 requests
    Finished 10000 requests


    Server Software:        
    Server Hostname:        localhost
    Server Port:            8000

    Document Path:          /
    Document Length:        1048576 bytes

    Concurrency Level:      100
    Time taken for tests:   10.085 seconds
    Complete requests:      10000
    Failed requests:        0
    Write errors:           0
    Total transferred:      10489017384 bytes
    HTML transferred:       10487857152 bytes
    Requests per second:    991.62 [#/sec] (mean)
    Time per request:       100.846 [ms] (mean)
    Time per request:       1.008 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
    Transfer rate:          1015729.90 [Kbytes/sec] received

    Connection Times (ms)
                  min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
    Connect:        1    2   0.8      2       6
    Processing:    21   99   5.6     98     137
    Waiting:        1    3   2.7      2      41
    Total:         25  101   5.6    101     139

    Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
      50%    101
      66%    102
      75%    103
      80%    103
      90%    105
      95%    106
      98%    108
      99%    112
     100%    139 (longest request)
     

Secondly, node.js:

    $ ab -c 100 -n 10000 http://localhost:8000/
    This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $>
    Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/
    Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/

    Benchmarking localhost (be patient)
    Completed 1000 requests
    Completed 2000 requests
    Completed 3000 requests
    Completed 4000 requests
    Completed 5000 requests
    Completed 6000 requests
    Completed 7000 requests
    Completed 8000 requests
    Completed 9000 requests
    Completed 10000 requests
    Finished 10000 requests


    Server Software:        
    Server Hostname:        localhost
    Server Port:            8000

    Document Path:          /
    Document Length:        1048576 bytes

    Concurrency Level:      100
    Time taken for tests:   15.765 seconds
    Complete requests:      10000
    Failed requests:        0
    Write errors:           0
    Total transferred:      10487558651 bytes
    HTML transferred:       10486808576 bytes
    Requests per second:    634.31 [#/sec] (mean)
    Time per request:       157.653 [ms] (mean)
    Time per request:       1.577 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
    Transfer rate:          649639.92 [Kbytes/sec] received

    Connection Times (ms)
                  min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
    Connect:        0    1   1.7      1      11
    Processing:     2  156  34.7    159     272
    Waiting:        1   47  29.7     42     136
    Total:          2  157  34.7    161     273

    Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
      50%    161
      66%    174
      75%    182
      80%    187
      90%    198
      95%    209
      98%    221
      99%    227
     100%    273 (longest request)

Not only does go serve the traffic more quickly, but it also has a much lower standard deviation between slow and long requests. Impressive.

> I can't wait until all the current methods of creating web apps are obsolete.

Please, don't hold your breath.

Can anyone from Stripe confirm that this box is not rooted?

Aw, sad. The server seems to be non-responsive.

Read this if you're stuck on level 3: http://destroy.net/machines/security/P49-14-Aleph-One

> 1) Every artist who's made an online release of their content in a desirable format (without DRM, etc) has seen sales in proportion to their general popularity. Every single one, without even one exception.

That's not true. Radiohead pulled the plug on their In Rainbows experiment after only 3 months in 2007. They decided to go the more traditional route instead. Why would they (an incredibly popular band) do something like that if sales were truly in proportion to their popularity?

Radiohead tried a similar experiment to Louis C.K.'s back in 2007 with their album In Rainbows. But after 3 months they decided that the online sales weren't working out and that they should pursue the more traditional avenue of selling CD's out of retail stores. Two similar stories with vastly different outcomes.

I say that it's similar because both are well established acts in the entertainment industry, releasing their work unencumbered by DRM (or other encryption) via a website. As I see it, the main differences are (in very general terms):

- Radiohead said that fans could pay whatever they wanted for the album, Louis C.K. charged $5 - Radiohead are a band, Louis C.K. is a comedian - Radiohead tried it in 2007, Louis C.K. in 2011

Of these 3, the most significant difference that I see is that Radiohead didn't set any price tag on their work while Louis C.K did. By some estimates more than half of the people who downloaded In Rainbows did so without paying a penny for it. Louis C.K., on the other hand, charged $5 right up front. The price tag was so low that it was a pretty easy decision for most who bought it, but it was there nonetheless.

I think that speaks volumes about setting customer's expectations appropriately, an area in which the software industry traditionally shoots itself in the foot. Ask your customers to pay something. If you have something of value, they will.

tl;dr: If you think that

  var output = Sugarless(input)(
     sanitize          
   , trim             
   , truncate, "", 200   
  );

is more readable than

  var output = truncate(trim(sanitize(input)), 200)

than you may be interested in Sugarless. Call me old school, but I prefer the latter.

> Which is exactly what the fat arrow does in Coffeescript.

Except when there's a regression in the compiler, and then it doesn't.

https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/1842

It's all good though, because "Pull requests are always welcome." :P

Glad to see that http://wastm2released.com/ was updated to reflect this announcement! Congrats on being so close Allan!

"If you are worried that women don’t feel capable of doing whatever they want, you can stop worrying."

This comment from the article gets at the heart of what the author is trying to say. Behind the desire to single out women as a group that needs a special invitation to pursue a career doing startups are two assumptions: 1) that women actually want a career doing startups and 2) that they do not feel empowered to pursue that course on their own.

The author simply isn't comfortable making those assumptions, which point of view is completely valid given the subjectivity of the topic.

Been thinking a lot about this statement, but still not sure exactly what he means by it. I could interpret it a few different ways, and I'm probably over-thinking it. How do you interpret this?

This is a very well-written article. I really enjoyed the "What it is", "Why I like it", "How I'd use it" format. It is much more helpful than a simple list of features.