To add to this, the other article wasn't even that bad. It was more taking some shots at a few libraries.

I would reply to the substance of your post, but the large number of upvotes that the article has received are reply enough. So I'll reply to the tone: do you really need to imply that the article's author suffers from node.js cultishness? That's unkind, and not well supported by the text of the article itself.

I'm sorry but the first paragraph does come across as cultish. It sounds as though he had to write this "rebuttal" because he was flying high after returning from jsconf (I've been to jsconf multiple times and understand this feeling completely) and couldn't let an anti-Node.js post go un-rebutted.

Also, the Node.js "cultishness" here would explain the large number of upvotes...

I have to admit that if I were re-writing my blog post today, I'd add the "cultishness" to the list of reasons why Node disappoints me. It's really too bad, too, since at its core it's genuinely good technology!

I don't think cultishness is inherently bad for a project, you just have to generally ignore the most enthusiastic of the followers.

But it's hardly new tech. How many event-loop-based systems are there? Erlang, Tcl, K, Twisted, Tornado, Eventmachine, etc.