IMHO, if one were building a site that would cater for millions of hits per day before they've even launched it, they've either hit the holy grail of ideas or they're building a site that will host good quality porn.
I wouldn't be making any assumptions about high traffic loads early in the game. Therefore, performance or scalability shouldn't be all that relevant. I'm in the "build first, optimise later" camp. One of the things I've learnt is that getting to market first is what counts most. Afterwards, when most killer ideas have been chewed up and spat out, the remaining few are faced with other issues like scalability. As for Twitter, a corner case I'd say. Cheers, Dan. On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Torm3nt <torm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Dave, > > Cheers for the input man, greatly appreciated! > > My point about development time, depends on what the project is. If > it's a small, lightweight project then the quicker you can get it out, > more than likely the better. If you're going to be creating a project > that is going to attract millions of hits a day, it would be worth > factoring that into the technology and framework choice, rather than > simply going with whatever is most comfortable. I know I myself have > fallen into that trap, and it cost me a lot later down the track. > > Software projects are very much a build first, optimize later - but if > it means redeveloping your project (read: twitter), then it would seem > that not enough planning and forethought was provided in order to > maximise on the platform of choice. (btw, I don't think twitter is > necessarily making the best decision =P) > > That said, not all software projects are web projects and this is what > I was trying to stress (on multiple fronts - obviously I didn't > communicate it too well =( ). I mean, using rails to create a > reporting tool that outputs to console probably isn't the most sound > choice for the job, and on the other hand - embedding HTML within a > PHP script wouldn't be the best solution to an enterprise-scale > project, either. I've even seen on some forums people wanting to use > Rails just so that they have access to ActiveRecord, when there are > quite a few solutions out there for such a task, which isn't tied to a > full-stack framework. > > "Seems like a bit of a dead issue to me anyway -- accepted practice is > to develop then optimise." > > Very much like my DRY CSS post - it's more of a thought-provoking > exercise, and it helps me map my own current thoughts to paper, as > well as hope to do the same for others, as is done via this very > discussion =) > > > Cheers, > > Kirk > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Dave Bolton <davebol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I wasn't able to read your blog post before, but I understand more what > you > > are getting at now that your server is back up. > > > > So, you're talking about heavyweight in terms of performance. It's > > difficult to address your ideas without getting specific about frameworks > -- > > defensiveness be damned, if you're going to call out heavyweight > frameworks > > you *need* to get specific so we can discuss. > > > > The example in your email of a Rails app for database reports seems at > odds > > with the blog post. Is a reporting app ever going to need to serve so > many > > pages that the framework is the issue? I think not. > > > >> [from blog post]: "Development time is generally much more expensive > than > >> hardware (unless you're serving millions of page view per day), and so > >> therefore (depending on the project) a sound and educated decision > should be > >> made, rather than simply jumping into your favourite development > framework." > > > > Given that development time is more expensive than hardware, then that is > > EXACTLY the reason you should use your favourite framework first. I take > > your point that when you have a hammer, every problem seems to be a nail, > > but also, if you're developing for the web, many problems *are* nails, > and > > most frameworks *are* hammers. Just use the one you are most comfortable > > with. > > > > Seems like a bit of a dead issue to me anyway -- accepted practice is to > > develop then optimise. Are there any frameworks that are really that bad > > that performance is going to kill you before your site is massive anyway? > > (if caching is used) > > > > Cheers, > > Dave > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Torm3nt <torm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Well there were a couple of frameworks, but I was trying to be > >> framework-agnostic for a reason - there are a few that are quite heavy > >> and load up a lot of files and libraries, even if they're not used - > >> so as to make the job easier for the developer. Plus I didn't want to > >> be labelled as a "oh he doesn't like framework x so he mustn't be > >> good with it".etc. If I targeted any specific framework, people are > >> bound to get defensive of their framework of choice, which detracts > >> from what I wanted to convey. > >> > >> > >> Kirk > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Dave Bolton <davebol...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > - Which frameworks are you targeting? > >> > - Heavyweight in what sense? Resources? Concepts? Performance? > >> > > >> > With respect to Rails, I don't have a problem throwing it at small > ideas > >> > -- > >> > the concepts are easy and standard, and resource requirements are not > so > >> > onerous to make it unfeasible (in all senses of resources). > >> > > >> > I guess you could mean heavyweight in the sense of all the things > Rails > >> > lets > >> > you do out-of-the-box, but there's no compulsion to use them all, and > >> > I'd be > >> > suprised if they changed the resource and performance equations so > much > >> > to > >> > make Rails no longer an option. > >> > > >> > So, put me in Dr Nic's "scales for the size of the project" bucket. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Dave > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Torm3nt <torm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Cheers for your input Dr Nic, > >> >> > >> >> I wasn't actually specifically targeting rails - rails 3.0 certainly > >> >> looks to be much more enticing as far as frameworks goes as you'll be > >> >> able to plug and play various libraries together, but not many > >> >> frameworks do this =P > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Kirk > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Dr Nic Williams <dr...@mocra.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > People talk about "rails doesn't scale" and mean performance. What > I > >> >> > love > >> >> > about Rails is that scales for the size of the project. You can > start > >> >> > a > >> >> > micro project today, and it easily evolves into a bigger project. > >> >> > The single-file-contains-my-app frameworks aren't wrong or broken; > >> >> > rather > >> >> > they take away one of the oft-forgotten but awesome aspects of > Rails: > >> >> > you > >> >> > and I both know where our next model or controller is going to go. > >> >> > The > >> >> > generators know it. The IDEs/editors know it. > >> >> > The heavy-weightedness of Rails will probably become optional as we > >> >> > move > >> >> > to > >> >> > 3.0 and beyond. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Torm3nt <torm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Hey all! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I've recently been musing over the use of heavy frameworks (such > as > >> >> >> RoR) and how I'm beginning to see (in some cases) them being > >> >> >> overused, > >> >> >> mostly for the wrong purposes. In one instance I witnessed a Rails > >> >> >> application for getting reports on a database. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I've written my thoughts on this and would love to hear from some > of > >> >> >> the more intelligent people in this community, either of their own > >> >> >> experiences or even a counter-argument =) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > http://www.kirkbushell.com/articles/using-the-right-tool-for-the-job > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Cheers, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Kirk Bushell > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Dr Nic Williams > >> >> > Mocra - Premier iPhone and Ruby on Rails Consultants > >> >> > w - http://mocra.com > >> >> > twitter - @drnic > >> >> > skype - nicwilliams > >> >> > e - dr...@mocra.com > >> >> > p - +61 412 002 126 or +61 7 3102 3237 > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to rails-oceania@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rails-oceania+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
