On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:40:06 +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:

> Here's a recent presentation from RailsConf Europe (actually Jason has
> given a similar talk several places) which puts the leverage of the
> language/application framework in perspective for web apps.
> 
> http://jxh.bingodisk.com/bingo/public/presentations/JHoffmanRailsConf-Berlin-Sept2007.pdf
> 
> Anyone who thinks that it's essential for Ruby to have better thread
> support to survive, and has an open mind MIGHT think differently after
> reading this.

That is a truly great presentation.

The *only* thing I might quibble with is the "one vendor" suggestion.  If
you're really going to be that big, you don't really want to tie your fate
to one vendor:

* If you're small potatoes, you're not important to them
* If you're the big cheese, you can overwhelm their capacity
* Either way, you have no leverage if they have no competition
* You'll get more data on relative failure rates, performance, bugs, etc.

One *configuration*, yes, but one vendor leads to heartache.

As AOL was scaling in the 1990s, we nearly always had two major vendors for
any one component, plus at least one experimental vendor.  We discovered
very quickly which big-iron kernels had better TCP stack performance, which
hard drive brands failed more often, etc.  And we got great prices, because
we could always to go The Other Guy.

In the end, the biggest "single vendor" we were tied to was the RBOCs,
which couldn't build local exchanges fast enough to provide enough dial
tones to local customers, since we were seriously messing with their
simultaneous-user projections, all of which assumed voice rather than data.
Probably not an issue anymore.

-- 
Jay Levitt                |
Boston, MA                | My character doesn't like it when they
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit.
http://www.jay.fm         | - Kristoffer