It's also important to note the architectural differences between Java and your favorite LAMP flavor. LAMP is generally a "shared nothing" situation where scaling out is a matter of just adding more machines with some transparent load balancing (on the non-database side). Java scaling tends towards beefing up the one box that's running your application server. Often, when you're talking about "will my site work with x million page views" you're talking about scalability more than performance.
The bottom line though is that every one of the options mentioned scale "well enough" for any real world need. You can name sites written in all of those languages/frameworks (plus .NET) that work well with load above what a VAST majority of other apps will see. If Django only showed half the performance of J2EE (not true), then for a lot of sites you're talking about doubling a cost which is tiny compared to your development costs. My company gets a bill around $400 per month for our hosting on ec2. If we doubled that, it still wouldn't be worth spending a day per month doubling the performance of our application. Whichever tool you (and your clients) can use most effectively from a development and maintenance standpoint is almost definitely the right tool for the job. -Wes On Mar 19, 7:33 am, Brian Morton <rokclim...@gmail.com> wrote: > Given how expensive developer time is relative to current hardware > costs (especially on the x86 server platforms), it is almost always > more cost effective to throw hardware at the problem than it is to > spend countless hours porting apps from one language or framework to > another for performance reasons. If you want examples, see the Django > book's deployment section. On that same note, it is more effective to > spend money on hardware (usually) than to code in a language that > takes 5 times as long to develop, configure, and deploy. > Configuration alone for most Java applications is enough to make your > head spin. > > In my opinion, Django does this way better than PHP's many frameworks > thanks to the "batteries included" approach. I have been developing > PHP for many years, and I do so professionally. My hope is that one > day more companies will go the way of Django so I can combine my play > time and my work time. > > On Mar 19, 3:17 am, Torsten Bronger <bron...@physik.rwth-aachen.de> > wrote: > > > Hallöchen! > > > Malcolm Tredinnick writes: > > > [...] > > > > Even PHP: I mean, Flickr, Wikipedia, Yahoo -- these are some > > > pretty large sites running on PHP. > > > I've always wondered why anybody uses something non-Java for Web > > applications. Given that Java is faster than PHP, Python etc., this > > also means that you need less computing power in your server farm. > > On the long run, this should *always* be worth it financially, > > unless Java is a nightmare to maintain, which I don't assume. > > > Granted, I use Python for our institute's internal Web application, > > but I expect our traffic to be smaller than what one single > > processor can handle. > > > Is it because the network and the database are the limiting factors? > > But even then, the part of your server farm running the interpreters > > could be reduced. > > > On the other hand, PHP is *highly* popular. So why is this? > > > Tschö, > > Torsten. > > > -- > > Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus > > Jabber ID: torsten.bron...@jabber.rwth-aachen.de --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
