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 conclusions I've arrived at? Or is the fact that using HPC gear doesn't automatically ensure business success somehow germane? More likely, I'm guessing that coming out of left field usually leaves your openents reeling as they try to regain footing on the unexpectedly changed turf. If that's the case, piss off. Write an essay in your own blog about how (just guessing at your entirely alluded to conclusion) HPC is entirely useless because it's ineffective in assuring business success. The same argument could be used to topple some languages people keep using and otherwise do some pretty effective, on-par technical journalism.

      Here are some tips for usefully and constructively discussing things:

      http://use.perl.org/~scrottie/journal/31900 [perl.org]

      You may also not be aware of the fact that I'm not a nice person. Bare that in mind as I comment that I hate writing these sort of "fuck off" posts, but I feel obligated to in order to fend off the mongolian hoardes of stupid that roam the Internet. I resent you for wasting my time trying to guess at the meaning of your irrelavent post, and I resent you for forcing a situation where I have to point out the utter stupidity of it for fear of your response seeming somehow valid or acceptable in form or ettiquite. While I sincerely hope I never encounter you again, my knowledge of your ilk warns me otherwise.

      -scott
      • 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 b
        • 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