Asumu Takikawa <asumu@...> writes: > Their usage-based billing is nice for small volume > sites and they scale the per-MB cost so that high-volume sites are > practical too.
Actually, I think the whole hosting topic is more important than it may seem. IMHO, web programming has been a niche for non-mainstream languages to show off (think of Ruby, think of Paul Graham's articles ... well actually I think most scripting languages gained a lot of momentum due to successful running examples in the wild). Among the reasons for that, people often cite that your users won't care what is installed on your server as long as the app works. But, of course, that is only true if you are willing to host your app, which is not the most common case. From my (albeit limited) commercial web programming experience (a couple of RoR apps I developed as a freelance when RoR wasn't that popular), if you're honest to your contractors, you will need to tell them about the tradeoff between a (cheaper/faster/more flexible/scalable/reliable... depending on the technology) initial development cost, vs a higher recurring hosting expense. LAMP stack based hosts being so cheap, and fixed, recurring costs being so scary, most of them just won't accept. So, again IMHO, finding a low-cost hosting that allowed making use of Racket's web server unique features (I'm thinking of continuations, mainly) would be great... Joan _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
