Scalability?
I guess Dave doesn't realize how many huge sites run on things like PHP, Perl and Smalltalk:
I've been getting lots of mail about the programming project described below. My challenge will be to try to organize the energy to actually create the needed software. People ask if C# or Java would be okay, and the answer is, of course. I basically meant "compiled code" as opposed to interpreted code. Static instead of dynamic. We have to cut to the metal. I also need to write up a spec that explains what the software does. Anyway, let's give it a couple of days to gestate. In the meantime you might start writing code. ";->"
Comments
Scalability?
[ Vincent Foley] December 2, 2004 19:00:22.352
Comment by Vincent Foley
With Basecamp http://www.basecamphq.com and many, many more projects coming using Ruby on Rails http://www.rubyonrails.org, I don't think you can so easily dismiss interpreted implementations of dynamically typed languages
[Ryan Lowe] December 2, 2004 19:39:55.837
I don't think he's talking about scalability. He's talking about efficiency. He wants to run this thing on whatever hardware he has, not some new *larger* box just to support some VM overhead. He wants to be "down to the metal" efficient.
I can see why he wants it, but he'd have more luck attracting people if he wasn't asking for efficiency like that. Also, he'd probably get this project DONE faster in a modern, memory-managed language. But hey, who am I to tell him what he should want?
[Ryan Lowe] December 2, 2004 19:58:33.509
Just to clarify, I know he said C# and Java are OK. I think maybe he's misunderstanding "compiled code" or doesn't know the difference between an interpreted language and a byte code (or IL) interpreter, but that's OK.
I don't think he'll be very happy with Java/C# performance if he won't be happy with an interpreted language like Python, Ruby, Smalltalk ... and it has little to do with scalability and more to do with VM (or CLR) overhead. He's got his mind set on super-efficient C, but he'll take a hit when it comes to development time. It's just a trade-off.
You could argue that the established server architectures will likely be more scalable than a custom designed C one. J2EE scales quite well. But that's only good if you've got the money for the hardware to scale it to, and I don't think Dave is interested in that at all or he'd just buy a new machine for the existing site.
Scalability?
[ James Robertson] December 2, 2004 21:56:36.392
Comment by James Robertson
Just as an FYI, most Smalltalk implementations are not interpreted - they use a JIT, and have for many, many years now