|
|
Posted by lawrence k on 12/28/06 01:21
Tony Marston wrote:
> "NC" <nc@iname.com> wrote in message
> news:1166935173.368450.106100@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > lawrence k wrote:
> > Frameworks help
> > developers quickly and cost-effectively (with "cost" meaning
> > "development cost" rather than "total cost of ownership") develop
> > resource-hogging software, so they should be avoided in all
> > instances where performance and scalability are important.
> > In the same vein, if you absolutely have to have a framework,
> > you should consider implementing it as a PHP extension...
>
> But if performance and scalability are NOT important then a good framework
> could save you a fortune in developer costs. RoR was specifically designed
> to reduce developer cycles, not cpu cycles, so it is not designed for
> performance and scalability.
I may regret this and I may later change my mind, but I think I agree
with the point Tony Marston is making here. The vast majority of our
clients have very low traffic sites. Saving development time, rather
than CPU time, is good economics. If someone writes us a check for
$10,000, for a site we can build in either 2 or 3 weeks, then, for us,
building it in 2 weeks is preferable to building the site in 3 weeks,
even if the site built in 3 weeks would be more efficient in terms of
CPU performance. The extra week of development might cost us $2,000, so
it would take a great deal of CPU demand before we'd earn back that
money. None of our current clients have the kind of traffic that would
make that $2,000 a sensible expenditure.
I could be wrong about this though. I have not considered the
counter-arguments or the long term costs.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|