<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is platform selection premature optimisation?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://warrenseen.com/blog/2007/04/16/is-platform-selection-premature-optimisation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://warrenseen.com/blog/2007/04/16/is-platform-selection-premature-optimisation/</link>
	<description>freelance software developer</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:24:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: warren</title>
		<link>http://warrenseen.com/blog/2007/04/16/is-platform-selection-premature-optimisation/#comment-1489</link>
		<dc:creator>warren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://warrenseen.com/blog/2007/04/16/is-platform-selection-premature-optimisation/#comment-1489</guid>
		<description>Jesper, I agree... some design up front is appropriate, but if every new social startup set out to achieve scalability to myspace-like traffic levels, they would fall before reaching the first hurdle.

Remember, that was one of the things derided about web 1.0, everyone was spending big on enterprise class hardware and expensive software stacks with a "build it and they will come" approach that doomed them to failure. 

The hardware is cheaper, and the software is free, but at the end of the day, it was the lack of sustainable business models that killed pets.com and their ilk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jesper, I agree&#8230; some design up front is appropriate, but if every new social startup set out to achieve scalability to myspace-like traffic levels, they would fall before reaching the first hurdle.</p>
<p>Remember, that was one of the things derided about web 1.0, everyone was spending big on enterprise class hardware and expensive software stacks with a &#8220;build it and they will come&#8221; approach that doomed them to failure. </p>
<p>The hardware is cheaper, and the software is free, but at the end of the day, it was the lack of sustainable business models that killed pets.com and their ilk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jesper Vingborg</title>
		<link>http://warrenseen.com/blog/2007/04/16/is-platform-selection-premature-optimisation/#comment-1488</link>
		<dc:creator>Jesper Vingborg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:48:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://warrenseen.com/blog/2007/04/16/is-platform-selection-premature-optimisation/#comment-1488</guid>
		<description>Wise words, and well spoken. On the other hand, I doggedly believe that "some design, early on" deserves a little more respect. A site like Digg, for instance, wouldn't make a lot of sense if it didn't scale well, as is the case for many other "Social Web" sites out there. Their very raison d'etre often depends on a LOT of sustained traffic.

I have absolutely no statistics to bolster this argument, but my feeling is that a lot of good ideas have stalled on the verge of popular adoption because of scalability issues.

The problem probably isn't wether any particular platform is more or less scaling friendly, but rather wether the team of developers (and, possibly, their financial hinterland) will be able to scramble in time to save the day. First impressions are important - after all, the rest of the web is only one click away ...

At the other end of the spectrum, time-limited, narrow-market campaign sites on a budget (that's my day job, I bitterly admit) faces a lot of the same sort of problems, but doesn't get the same coverage.

Well, I'm off coding on my revolutionary Web 2.0 hobby project ... it's very social and it's very much in Rails.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wise words, and well spoken. On the other hand, I doggedly believe that &#8220;some design, early on&#8221; deserves a little more respect. A site like Digg, for instance, wouldn&#8217;t make a lot of sense if it didn&#8217;t scale well, as is the case for many other &#8220;Social Web&#8221; sites out there. Their very raison d&#8217;etre often depends on a LOT of sustained traffic.</p>
<p>I have absolutely no statistics to bolster this argument, but my feeling is that a lot of good ideas have stalled on the verge of popular adoption because of scalability issues.</p>
<p>The problem probably isn&#8217;t wether any particular platform is more or less scaling friendly, but rather wether the team of developers (and, possibly, their financial hinterland) will be able to scramble in time to save the day. First impressions are important - after all, the rest of the web is only one click away &#8230;</p>
<p>At the other end of the spectrum, time-limited, narrow-market campaign sites on a budget (that&#8217;s my day job, I bitterly admit) faces a lot of the same sort of problems, but doesn&#8217;t get the same coverage.</p>
<p>Well, I&#8217;m off coding on my revolutionary Web 2.0 hobby project &#8230; it&#8217;s very social and it&#8217;s very much in Rails.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil's point-free blog</title>
		<link>http://warrenseen.com/blog/2007/04/16/is-platform-selection-premature-optimisation/#comment-1486</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil's point-free blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:31:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://warrenseen.com/blog/2007/04/16/is-platform-selection-premature-optimisation/#comment-1486</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Appropriate Optimization and Platform Choices&lt;/strong&gt;

There has been some controversy recently about Twitter and its problems scaling up to satisfy a very impressive level of growth in traffic. In particular the controversy has centred on whether the choice of language (Ruby) and framework (Rails) was a w...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Appropriate Optimization and Platform Choices</strong></p>
<p>There has been some controversy recently about Twitter and its problems scaling up to satisfy a very impressive level of growth in traffic. In particular the controversy has centred on whether the choice of language (Ruby) and framework (Rails) was a w&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
