Agreed, http://teddziuba.com/2008/04/im-going-to-scale-my-foot-up-y.html
On 08/04/2009, at 3:39 PM, Cameron Barrie wrote: > I agree with that last point. > I do loathe the twitter examples in regards to scaling(no disrespect > meant to anyone BTW). > I can't think of any framework/architecture out of the box that > would have, Got that built for them quickly as it did, and not had a > scaling issue. > Twitter get's slammed by millions and millions of requests, nothing > would've handled that load, nor should they have anticipated/ > architected for that sort of load from the beginning. > Granted they took to long to come up with a solution, but that's not > he fault of the language/framework. It's a pretty freakin' good > solution IMHO. > > I had a .Net dev telling me the other day he'd never use Rails since > it doesn't scale, and pointed out twitter as his example, I asked > him the last time he wrote a site/service designed to handle that > sort of load, answer... Never has and probably never will. Like most > of us. Then of course he also pointed out, that a .NET app straight > out of the box would've died in the arse as well under that sort of > load. > > Twitter is the scaling corner case or all corner cases. > > My opinion of twitter is more along the lines of you want to scale > Rails, look at twitter that thing is freakin' crazy if they can > scale that you can scale anything. With some hard thinking and good > coders you can even make that shit work in Ruby. It's a developers > best friend after all. :D > > C > > On 08/04/2009, at 3:26 PM, Daniel Sabados wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
