|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 01/06/08 20:04
faulkes wrote:
> On Jan 6, 1:39 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> And programs won't fail if they've been properly designed and tested.
>> I'm not saying they're going to be perfect. There's no such thing.
>> However, a proper development process will keep them from dying.
>
> Apparently you've never given something to a user to play with.
>
I've been programming for around 40 years now. I've worked on a lot of
projects in that time. Those which were not managed well had the
problems you describe. But those which were well-managed did not.
As I said - I never claimed even the well-managed projects were
error-free. But they didn't fail.
>>> You can design an app perfectly to support 1 million users but if you
>>> only have
>>> a dialup connection, it won't do you much good. Scalability covers
>>> everything
>>> not only from the code perspective but down to your network
>>> perspective (lb's,
>>> reverse caching, memcache, redundant bandwidth, redundant servers,
>>> etc)
>> But the app is the hardest to change. It's much easier to change from a
>> dialup connection to a T-3, for instance.
>
> Nobody is saying don't code well or don't follow best practices or
> have
> procedures in place. As stated, scalability is not single faceted and
> the dirth of apps dying on Black Friday or any given successful launch
> are
> proof positive of it isn't.
>
>>> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-tune-lamp-1/#resources
>>> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-tune-lamp-2.html?ca...
>>> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-php-fastapps2/
>>
>> Those are good for what they say. But they're by no means complete.
>> There is a lot more to scaling, even on a single server.
>>
>
> As stated, they are a start, which is far better than you offered. So
> apart
> from snide remarks and a complete failure to actually provide
> something useful,
> do you actually have anything to add?
>
Other than the fact you've offered very little other than 3 links he
could have easily found in google? Big deal.
>> So your answer is telling him to google? Gee, can't you do better than
>> that?
>
> Yes, I refer you to the almighty fact that you didn't give him a
> nickels
> worth of url he could so much as peruse.
>
That's because I don't have on particular site. The links you gave were
OK - but not at all complete.
> Added that given how trivial it is once you get started to google for
> the rest,
> he shouldn't have too much of a problem and even be able to come back
> here and
> ask questions if he needs.
>
> Or he could hire me.
>
Yep, and get an application which will fail as soon as he gives it to a
user.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|