> It was an issue back in the day. No one had time to write > their web applications in assembler, so server-side scripting > was the way to do it. Just because people use a high level > language doesn't mean that performance isn't important. > Further, it is complete crap to say you must use a low > level language to get high performance.
Well, the assembler thing was a bit of a joke. However, it's been the case, and still is, I suppose, that when you do need the best possible performance for web apps, you wouldn't use a scripting language for them. When I buy airline tickets through Expedia, the order processing is done through a DLL, if I recall correctly. I'd guess that there are performance reasons for encapsulating business logic in COM for ASP apps, too. So, while it may be complete crap to say you must use a low level language to get high performance, it's not complete crap to say that, all other things being equal, you're more likely to get better performance from a low level language. Your argument within your article, if I understand it correctly, is that there was this period in which server performance mattered a lot, but that it's no longer nearly as important as it was. I take issue with that. My counterargument is that server performance was never the universal issue of concern that you make it out to be - during the height of the dotcom boom, plenty of people sunk a lot of money into powerful servers and software that turned out to be overkill, and then they poorly implemented the stuff in a lot of cases. I think that, now as then, there are several potentially antagonistic goals that web developers aimed for: performance, maintenance, time-to-market, minimal development costs and so on. Two years ago, plenty of people were willing to spend money on hardware to minimize their development costs, and the same is true today, because for those people, time-to-market and cheaper development are worth the potential performance costs. While trend-spotting makes good fodder for articles, it's a bit dangerous - most such arguments overstate their cases. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
