Yups, also true.

In any case, we'll also be moving towards using Erlang-based design docs
now. Javascript is great for starters, but once you hit several dozen
design docs and a few hundred thousand documents, you definitely need
something faster.


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Stanley Iriele <siriele...@gmail.com>wrote:

> True... But the only way for that to happen is for them to bypass several
> other layers of security... In which case I'd have much bigger problems to
> worry about
> On Aug 14, 2013 8:08 PM, "Andrey Kuprianov" <andrey.koupria...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So far it seems very promising. :) However, what they say can happen is
> > that since Erlang code has no sandbox, anything could be done to the
> system
> > through design views, if your database is compromised.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Stanley Iriele <siriele...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > 5-6 times eh?...that would give me an honest reason for picking up
> Erlang
> > > again....I'm going to try converting all of my views to Erlang and see
> > what
> > > happens..what's the worst that can happen? :-)
> > > On Aug 14, 2013 7:55 PM, "Andrey Kuprianov" <
> andrey.koupria...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I had a 5-6 times speed boost yesterday, after converting one of my
> > > design
> > > > docs to Erlang. Like a breath of fresh air, if you ask me.
> > > >
> > > >   Andrey
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Stanley Iriele <
> siriele...@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm curious... What exactly is the performance gain from writing
> > > > > views/shows/ etc in Erlang vs JavaScript... From what I've seen the
> > > > > JavaScript view server is sufficiently fast and feature complete.
> > > > >
> > > > > So my question is this.... Is the Erlang view server that much
> > > faster?...
> > > > > Is there another gain that I'm missing?..and is it as feature
> > complete
> > > as
> > > > > the JavaScript equivalent?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Stanley
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to