<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>blasdel</author><text>He mostly pans the &lt;i&gt;&apos;less-than-expert programmers&apos;&lt;/i&gt; canard, so he never explores the assertion that&apos;s at its base — that events are far better for &lt;i&gt;correctness&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;Rob Pike has spent the last 25 years developing evented languages, and while the Hoare-style CSP approach he&apos;s settled on allows for physical concurrency, he doesn&apos;t give a shit about bare-metal performance. The fundamental purpose is to be able to write concise programs that directly model the parallelism of the real world, written in an expository manner as to be more obviously correct.&lt;p&gt;Pike&apos;s point is that you should be getting the best true performance by working in an environment that helps you arrive at the ideal algorithm in it&apos;s purest form. Making compromises to get more local physical concurrency is a fool&apos;s errand, since at scale you&apos;re going to far outgrow single machines anyway!</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Node and Scaling in the Small vs Scaling in the Large</title><url>http://al3x.net/2010/07/27/node.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>KirinDave</author><text>I&apos;m glad to see people starting to push back against the cult of “Evented is faster.”&lt;p&gt;It may be, it may not be. The idea that it always is, though, that&apos;s balderdash.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Node and Scaling in the Small vs Scaling in the Large</title><url>http://al3x.net/2010/07/27/node.html</url></story>