Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Yeah, that Altavista sure showed that upstart Google how to do Scaleable Internet Applications[TM] right.

    Altavista always rightly insisted on massive, high I/O throughput servers and avoided the trendy thousands-of-small-cheap-systems that Google tried to use.


    • Hey fartnocker.

      I'm sorry, I'm fuzzy on your conclusion... mine was that we're re-inventing wheels, these problems have been solved in a more general way already, and high end server equipment does offer something (high speed interconnects) that's sometimes useful, and is not simply overpriced off-the-shelf hardware.

      You seem to be arguing by changing the topic and then leaving me with only an implied conclusion. Do you disagree with my my premises? Any of the logical arguments I've constructed? The conclu
      • I don't care if you're nice or not. I know your kind, too, people who can throw around enough insults and seem prickly enough that nobody will argue with them and so they "win".

        You insult Ask unfairly and I make fun of you. Get used to it, it's the Internet.

        Ask points out that scaleability today is about lots of cheap servers (what he calls Horizontal Scaling), Google is a great example of using this approach to build something on a scale that our "fucking fathers" couldn't dream of doing with all their beefy servers. That's my point.

        Nobody said HPC was irrelevant. Weather, simulations, research all benefit from HPC, but when people want to be scaleable for web applications, which is what Ask's presentation clearly focused on, lots of cheap servers appears to be the way to go.
        • This is “worse is better,” ain’t it?

          (Which is a stupid saying; a properly qualified version would be “worse along some axis is better along some other, more important one” – but that’s not anywhere near as catchy. So I suppose worse is better even when it comes to the very saying itself…)

          • I don't think it really is captured by "Worse is Better".

            I think of "Worse is Better" as being an 80% solution that will be hugely popular and thus be better than a 100% solution that will not be adopted.

            When Richard Gabriel formulated "Worse is Better" it was referrring to Unix/C when compared to Lisp-Machines. The Unix/C were worse in most ways, according to Gabriel, when compared to Lisp-Machines, but were better in that they were available, where Lisp Machines weren't.

            Come to think of it, you might be