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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 - [email protected] > >> > 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
