For a long time I saw alot of strange behaviors as well, but since the relase of HRD I truely believe GAE is ready to leave preview.
On Jun 29, 8:16 am, Jeremy Wallez <[email protected]> wrote: > I totally agree with you Vivek. > > Personnally, I like GAE but I encountered a lot of strange behaviors on my > business applications. > > 2011/6/29 vivpuri <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > I understand that you are upset that your appengine bill might go up > > > 4X, but how do you jump from this to the conclusion that "Google > > > should support PHP"?? > > Every application development platform needs developers. iOS, AWS, > > Facebook, Win32, MacOS,.... And each platform provider comes up with a > > a strategy to acquire developers. Apple did that via steller products > > backed with millions of dollars of ad budgets. AWS revolutionized > > regular hosting company operations by adding ability to bring servers > > up and down at an instants notice. This attracted corporate users who > > could put java, and startups that could PHP. Msft got developers by > > tight bundling of products, where one feeds the other. > > > What was the plan for AppEngine? None in my opinion. AppEngine put > > Python out first, which was clearly not developers choice at that > > time. And second one to come in was Java, where google thought they > > will get the enterprise customers and resulting big money. However, as > > everyone has discovered, corporates are not yet prepared for paradigm > > shift in programming that AppEngine offers and would very much prefer > > a server based model that EC2 offers. And besides that, no support > > desk to call 24X7 pretty much kills any corporate interest. As a > > result corporate customers are really locked out for AppEngine. As for > > Python, there are not many startups looking to take this path 'cause > > lack of developers is going to cause long term hiring issues. > > > Going by numbers, if we look at the Bug Tracker for AppEngine - > >http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/list, number 1 > > request is "PHP Support is a must" with 3143 votes(approx 50% more > > votes than feature #2). In my opinion, Google should have never > > ignored developer opinion. Instead, AppEngine team should have > > recognized the demand and delivered the feature. And now 3 years down > > the line, AppEngine has added support for GO instead, which has pretty > > much no developers. As compared to that, if they had added support for > > PHP, there would have been thousands of more developers on the > > platform, generating more revenues for AppEngine, and the team not > > getting forced to make such drastic pricing changes. > > > Besides that, from what is seems to me, someone with mindset of Google > > Apps or even Search Product is making decisions for AppEngine, where > > each developer is treated like a user. As a result strategy/thinking > > is that features can be flipped right before our eyes without being > > asked for opinion or any consideration for our efforts. Personally i > > have been here since the days when AppEngine didnt throw the > > DeadlineExceededError and you were left wondering for days why that > > HTTP 500 is showing, and days when i was not able to delete data for 2 > > months since no process existed, and times when i had to pay $6k for > > deleting 3TB of data, and days where there are thousands of datastore > > timeouts resulting in user loss(without getting any refund). With all > > this, I would really hope AppEngine gives more consideration to > > existing developers. > > > > I think you assume too much. I interpret this as a temporary salve to > > > keep Python developers from feeling like second-class citizens until > > > multithreaded Python is available. > > I am not assuming too much. It's simple math. Besides that, i have > > never seen a hosting company tell me that since PHP version x now has > > support for this new feature. If you implement it, its good, else we > > are going to change 4X for the server. > > Also, writing new code to support threading is okay, but modifying > > half million lines of production code to support threading is > > suicide. > > > On Jun 29, 4:29 am, Jeff Schnitzer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:34 PM, vivpuri <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thank you for the response. I am not really confused about anything. > > > > Everyone has different set of experiences and resulting opinions. > > > > Facebook was built on PHP, and definitely started from $5 PHP/MySQL. > > > > I understand that you are upset that your appengine bill might go up > > > 4X, but how do you jump from this to the conclusion that "Google > > > should support PHP"?? > > > > > Also, i am not able to understand the logic behind charging half for > > > > python instances since AppEngine does not support threading as of now. > > > > I am a python threading noob, but going by the offer that AppEngine > > > > team has thrown out, it seems threading can increase performance at > > > > most by 2x, which is the only way you can justify 1/2 price. I find it > > > > hard to believe. > > > > I think you assume too much. I interpret this as a temporary salve to > > > keep Python developers from feeling like second-class citizens until > > > multithreaded Python is available. > > > > Jeff > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Google App Engine" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
