The point is moot. HTTP is just the transport protocol in this case. Doesn't have to say that it has to be the front end service that talks to the end user web browser. The OP of the "cancer" article made up that shit. I can bind the listener of a node service to an UNIX Domain Socket and talk HTTP over that socket with a front end web server, instead of plain TCP (reduces the IPC latency). It is IPC between distinct components. It delegates the dynamic page generation to another service. It is a text interface, although sometimes, well, most of the times, the binary protocols outperform the text based protocols therefore the theory is crap. Isn't this "UNIX way" enough for some people? Forget the part that says: any IPC adds extra latency to the request - response paradigm aka the opposite of the stuff a web stack should do.

Can you tell me at least one example from the myriad xGI protocols for interfacing a web server with an application server that actually brings any benefit over having plain HTTP/1.1 and a reverse proxy? Does it help to have yet another protocol for doing basically the same task: IPC between a couple of servers? Any xGI client (aka web server) is basically a reverse proxy for an IPC protocol. Does it say somewhere, carved in stone, that this protocol must be other than HTTP? I think that most people that spend the time engineering yet another xGI solution simply don't see the forest for the trees.

PS: nobody stops anybody to drop a scgi.js or fastcgi.js module for node.js if that keeps people warm at night. But maybe I'm one of those tired of this shit: engineering yet another xGI protocol for every programming language that floats around the web. NIH syndrome, I'd say. At least HTTP is ubiquitous, while most servers already HAVE a reverse proxy handler.