On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Peter Zotov <[email protected]> wrote: > Roger Pack писал 17.09.2012 22:06: > >> So basically if you're ok with a "somewhat slow" end product, Ruby is >> still grand, because programming in it is funner. > > I want to note that there isn't a general measure for slowness. Is it > fast to crank 100MB of data in 1s? 10s? 1h? The answer doesn't depend > on the kind of data, or your programming language, or whatever. If the > application's behavior is within your (business) requirements, it's fast.
Right. Unfortunately too often these types of requirements are forgotten... :-) Still it doesn't make your statement wrong - it's just an additional data point. ;-) > And most often the requirement isn't "response time under 10ms" (through > such applications definitely do exist), but the "lowest TCO", and hardware > scales way better than humans. Last weekend I attended a presentation of someone owning a company which sells support for an open source software which it also maintains. The software is a web application and someone asked about scalability (how many users?). The guy said something like "It's a web application. Look at facebook, that scales to several hundred million users." - now, _that's_ marketing chuzpe. > That being said, I won't write number crunching algorithms in Ruby, or work > with gigabyte-sized datasets. Well, even that depends. Sifting through logfiles of that volume is almost certainly IO bound and the processing speed can be negligible. That of course depends on the processing. Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ruby-talk-google group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/ruby-talk-google?hl=en
