3 ms·

http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt That said, even as a hard-core C++ guy, I can't see why you'd really want to write a web application in

by wheels 18y ago

http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt That said, even as a hard-core C++ guy, I can't see why you'd really want to write a web application in C++. If you want C++-like syntax, you'd be better off with Java for web stuff.

alecco 18y ago
(Can't help it) And start saving money for memory and large amount of servers...
- quasimojo 18y ago
  the time you save is definitely worth $3k
  - jgalvez 18y ago
    Hmm, I'm not sure if $3k is all you'll ever need for Java hardware. If the application is big enough you're likely to have keep on spending on vertical scaling. But then again, that's what big enterprises like to do: spend money on big boxes.
    - jgalvez 18y ago
      Which leads me to point that out that Java is far from suitable for a start-up. I'm beginning to think that Python plus C/C++ might be the golden bullet for startups. Ruby's C integration is easier than Python, but there's something to be said about the overall language model and performance. I tend to have a main RoR app for the website and a few Python daemons in the background for the really heavy stuff, and now it's finally the time to think about offloading some of that load even further closer to the machine, in C/C++. I'd really love to come up with a standardized way of deploying small, context-specific RESTful API servers in either C or C++. I'm starting to think that a possible C++/Python bridge via Thrift is likely the best option. But then again, if I just managed to keep it all in a C++ application without needing to run the Python interpreter, it could totally rock (for an application that is supposed to serve 100k+ users on cheap hardware). It's cool to see cloud computing going mainstream and now applications written in any language can be reasonably fast with the help of EC2, a load balancer and memcached. But I still think there's great value to coming up with truly lightweight solutions that really use nearly all computing power a single node can possibly offer.
      - wheels 18y ago
        This really doesn't make a lot sense. Java is also easy to bind to C / C++ and its performance is better than Ruby or Python. The logic behind that seems to be ... that scaling in memory usage is important but not CPU usage? I'm not really a Java apologist, but it just seems another one of those languages that people bash because it's cool to bash.
        michaelneale 18y ago
        In sensible hands, you can exchange Java for C++ and get very similar performance for a lot less hassle, and (increasingly) lean on scripting the same way you would with python/ruby. Of course that means ignoring the way "enterprises" mostly use java (which is just silly), and using it more the way google does.
        alecco 18y ago
        Please note I mentioned memory. Java is OK on bare language algorithm implementation speed, but if you have a look at all the benchmarks in the language shootout its memory needs are up to 108 times better. A conservative consideration would be 10 times better in the average algorithm. That is compounded with the typical architecture of Java frameworks. Also finding issues sometimes feels like occult magic on modern JVMs. And then, running with compatibility issues on JVM versions and all that. Java failed in the browser and now it will probably have a crash at the server. There is no more budget for multimillion dollar datacentres everywhere. But thanks for all the jobs! :)
        alecco 18y ago
        Forgot the link of the Language Shootout: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=java&lang2=gpp http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all... It's no proof, but real life shows something even worse than that against Java. For example the one thread per connection model everywhere or the XML web services throwing away objects faster than the GC can handle.

by wheels 18y ago

alecco 18y ago

(Can't help it) And start saving money for memory and large amount of servers...

quasimojo 18y ago
the time you save is definitely worth $3k
- jgalvez 18y ago
  Hmm, I'm not sure if $3k is all you'll ever need for Java hardware. If the application is big enough you're likely to have keep on spending on vertical scaling. But then again, that's what big enterprises like to do: spend money on big boxes.
  - jgalvez 18y ago
    Which leads me to point that out that Java is far from suitable for a start-up. I'm beginning to think that Python plus C/C++ might be the golden bullet for startups. Ruby's C integration is easier than Python, but there's something to be said about the overall language model and performance. I tend to have a main RoR app for the website and a few Python daemons in the background for the really heavy stuff, and now it's finally the time to think about offloading some of that load even further closer to the machine, in C/C++. I'd really love to come up with a standardized way of deploying small, context-specific RESTful API servers in either C or C++. I'm starting to think that a possible C++/Python bridge via Thrift is likely the best option. But then again, if I just managed to keep it all in a C++ application without needing to run the Python interpreter, it could totally rock (for an application that is supposed to serve 100k+ users on cheap hardware). It's cool to see cloud computing going mainstream and now applications written in any language can be reasonably fast with the help of EC2, a load balancer and memcached. But I still think there's great value to coming up with truly lightweight solutions that really use nearly all computing power a single node can possibly offer.
    - wheels 18y ago
      This really doesn't make a lot sense. Java is also easy to bind to C / C++ and its performance is better than Ruby or Python. The logic behind that seems to be ... that scaling in memory usage is important but not CPU usage? I'm not really a Java apologist, but it just seems another one of those languages that people bash because it's cool to bash.
      - michaelneale 18y ago
        In sensible hands, you can exchange Java for C++ and get very similar performance for a lot less hassle, and (increasingly) lean on scripting the same way you would with python/ruby. Of course that means ignoring the way "enterprises" mostly use java (which is just silly), and using it more the way google does.
        alecco 18y ago
        Please note I mentioned memory. Java is OK on bare language algorithm implementation speed, but if you have a look at all the benchmarks in the language shootout its memory needs are up to 108 times better. A conservative consideration would be 10 times better in the average algorithm. That is compounded with the typical architecture of Java frameworks. Also finding issues sometimes feels like occult magic on modern JVMs. And then, running with compatibility issues on JVM versions and all that. Java failed in the browser and now it will probably have a crash at the server. There is no more budget for multimillion dollar datacentres everywhere. But thanks for all the jobs! :)
        alecco 18y ago
        Forgot the link of the Language Shootout: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=java&lang2=gpp http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all... It's no proof, but real life shows something even worse than that against Java. For example the one thread per connection model everywhere or the XML web services throwing away objects faster than the GC can handle.