towelrod

The point is that you shouldn't have to configure things like @Path because they can be inferred from the class name. Why not:

  class Hello {
    def get() {
      "Hello, world!"
    }
  }

I would prefer to see this and then let someone have a routing config somewhere else if they want to move the /hello endpoint.

What $1,000 worth of equipment? The "free" tier only comes with a network box, and it has a $300 "construction fee". $300 should pretty easily pay for what looks like a wireless router.

Interesting -- what other apps use the remote control API? I have never been able to control anything other than "Music" with either of my cars.

Aside from using the phone to make calls, of course.

Are you kidding me? Currently my car radio can control the music app and let me listen to podcasts. Why would they take that functionality away?

There is also a "continue without logging in" link.

That's not enough. Contacts should not be accessible by third party apps without explicit permission, period. Its not enough to remove apps after they are found to violate a rule. Just don't even make it possible to violate that rule in the first place.

thin uses EventMachine and puma uses threads.

Hmm, I graduated from college before the REALLY old days were over, apparently. :)

I don't mean to glorify USENET. The web based forums brought many cool new features -- you could post images that worked reliably, the Slashdot-style moderation stuff was a big boon, etc. I just meant to point out that the internet moves in cycles, and those cycles seem to lead towards newer technology and more centralized control.

Facebook is doing the same thing to your forum that your forum did to USENET.

In the 90s, USENET was lively and active. It was federated, decentralized, and you could use any client you wanted to access the information. Web based forums came along and shifted that control away from the loose internet and into the owners of the forums.

I think the OP just meant that once someone like reddit moves into your cloud, your performance goes down. Meaning, the hardware that my little blog is on works great until that hardware also hosting reddit, and then my blog takes a beating because reddit is thrashing away with actual activity.

People have spent billions of dollars buying music on iTunes. Its pretty obvious that people will pay for things if its more convenient than pirating it.

>If Hollywood wants to improve box office receipts, they could stop making so many sequels, movies from comic books, movies from TV shows, and 3D for the sake of 3D.

If they want to improve receipts, why should they stop making the movies that make the most money? You might not like sequels and comic books, but apparently most people do.

http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/newsStory.php?newsID=...

Do you have a source for that quote?

To be clear, I don't think that the NGIN slowdown is caused by this exception stuff, because that has been taken out and was really a different performance problem altogether. I only raised it because it was similar -- a problem only on 1.8.7 that was fixed as soon as someone mentioned it.

I think it is very interesting that the specific test produced in the original post is actually faster under Rails 3 and Ruby 1.9.2 than it is under Rails 2 and 1.8.7.

My only grief with you, fauigerzigerk, is that you claim the Rails team doesn't "give a shit about performance", when the performance problems seem to be related to people using an older version of Ruby. I think you are making an extraordinary claim -- that the rails team doesn't "give a shit", in in fact, they clear do give a shit.

>exception handling is universally slow.

Except that exception handling is so fast in 1.9.2 that it made this change a performance optimization in 1.9.2. Look lower in this topic for benchmarks showing that Rails 3 is faster in 1.9.2 than rails2 is under 1.8.7.

>performance-wise it almost certainly will always be slower

Except, it wasn't slower in the Ruby that most people running Rails 3 should be running (1.9.2).

I also point out, again, that they immediately fixed this problem when someone pointed out how slow it was in 1.8.7.

I hear what you are saying about exceptions, but you also have to live in reality. Look at danielparks benchmarks in this thread; rails3 under 1.9.2 is faster than rails2 under 1.8.7.

Its easy enough to spout platitudes like "don't use exceptions for flow control", except remember two basic facts about the commit that I linked:

1. It was using exceptions for flow control as an optimization 2. That optimization was indeed faster on 1.9.2

On top of that, when the rails team was notified about how bad this "optimization" was in 1.8.7, they immediately fixed it.

I just don't see how any of this fits into "don't give a shit about performance".

The problems here are manifesting on Ruby 1.8.7, but not 1.9.2. There have been big performance problems found with 1.8.7, for example in this issue:

https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/...

What was originally a performance optimization on 1.9.2 caused a terrible slowdown on 1.8.7. It was reported and fixed within two days.

Does that still fit into your "not giving a shit about performance" critique? I think the "real problem" is that there are two major releases of MRI Ruby (not to mention JRuby) that have very different performance characteristics.

Blizzard freaks out about changing IP addresses when you sign in to World of Warcraft. I have two internet connections at home and sometimes I switch back and forth, and back when I was playing WoW, it would lock me out after each switch. I had to login to my account via the battle.net website and stell it that everything was ok.

It was extremely annoying. The last few times it happened I just didn't play for a while because I didn't want to bother with reauthenticating; that's when I realized that I didn't enjoy the game that much any more and cancelled my account.

I wear all of those hats from time to time, and I'm a Remote International, and it works ok.

That's interesting. Installing New Relic makes your site dependent on New Relic's availability? That's kinda scary...

Of course its also possible that you just got lucky and Heroku came back up for you when you redeployed. Could be a coincidence.

But they would have to pay for all of those. Its more likely to see something like "Angry Birds Forth of July!", right?

Look at something like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/03/01/business/01eboo...

So $4 out of the $26 I pay for a hardcover book goes to the person who is actually responsible for the content? I submit paying $22 in rent is ridiculous, and as long as something like this holds true, thepiratebay looks pretty good.

I buy a lot of ebooks in the $10 range, and I would buy even more in the $5 range -- especially if the $5 went to the person who actually wrote the book.

Google and StackOverflow are kinda the same step. I don't think I've ever gone to search specifically on StackOverflow, but google finds the answer there quite often.

I think this is a natural extension of the work programmers do these days. We don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out a better compression algorithm, but we sure spend a lot of time trying to figure out why some third party tool is throwing an error after upgrading some other third party tool.

There's not much of a point -- that's why 1.8.7 is still around, and why uptake on 1.9.2 has been so slow.

If 1.9.2 really made every HTTP request go 2x as fast, don't you think every Ruby shop would have switched to 1.9.2 at least a year ago?

That kind of performance just doesn't matter that much though. I recently benchmarked my fairly standard Rails app on 1.8.7 vs. 1.9.2, and the numbers for delivering a page are basically the same.

1.9.2 is much faster for calculating Fibonacci numbers, sure, but since webapps are mostly IO bound it just doesn't matter.

> My read is that Apple is looking ahead at a future full of small/startup ebook publishers.

If I was a small/startup, I would happily give over some percentage -- possibly even 30% -- of my revenue to Apple in order to avoid building my own payment system. The App store is really nice, and if they want to compete on the merits of the store, then that's great.

But Apple isn't doing that. They are using the power of their marketshare to force publishers into paying a 30% tithe to Apple just to put an application on the device. It doesn't matter if you are Amazon or the New York Times and already have your own subscription system -- you have to eat the 30% cut.

That's what bothers me about this. If Apple wants to compete by providing a more cost effective point of sale system, then that's great; everyone wins. But they are abusing a monopoly position to force publishers into their system, and in that game, Apple is the only winner.

Sure, Amazon is the poster boy for getting screwed here. But they aren't the only ones getting swept up in this nonsense.

I'm just saying, I'm not Amazon. I'm a content company that sells content to users in print form, and on the web (primarily on the web these days). Customers can only get to my content if they subscribe. Most of them get to that content via our website. Pretend I'm the Wall Street Journal (but I'm not).

I'd like to make a IOS app to allow my users to get to their extremely expensive content in a native application, but now that I have to pay a 30% tithe to Apple, I won't do that. Now I'll make a web based version which will suck more, and we'll let that ride until Apple pulls that out from under us too.

Why is it only a major issue if it relates to SaaS? Isn't screwing over Amazon and anyone else selling that kind of content already a major issue?

Anyway, Apple clearly wants this to apply to XaaS, where X = anything and S = subscription. Or by this time next year, Xaa$.

That's not what is happening here. My company makes all of its money from subscription services that we sell directly to customers. Now if we provide a IOS app to access that content, we risk losing 30% of our revenue if the user happens to sign up via the app instead of via our website.

I'm not sure what "open alternative" you are referring to. My website -- built on "open" everything, other than the subscription cost -- is doing fine. I would like to provide a native IOS app to access that content. But I can't accept a 30% revenue cut.

> the real schoolboy error was Aaron Barr using a weak shared password for Google Apps admin.

I've been reading through some of this HBGary stuff, and I have come to the conclusion that Aaron Barr is kinda a dipshit.

Read the email analysis at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/spy/ and its filled with Aaron Barr "hacking" into people's facebook accounts and then posting pictures of their kids as if he made some awesome discovery.