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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
