awesome link - i lol'd more than once. On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:41 PM, David Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- cheers, David Lee --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
