Re: Here we go again...
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2006
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 66673
interpreted = N
texte = Well said. I love webdna too, and am grateful for how it taught me practical approaches to logic and understanding of programming. I would like to always use webdna, but when not working for a 'webdna company' I am forced to use other technologies, usually php or C#. Webdna reminds me of beta cassette tapes, yeah they were better than VHS, but if not used by the masses many people less subsequent development is devoted to it, thus it eventually gets replaced by something else - survival of the fittest. On a side note I sure miss those days, late nineties, when Ken would go back and forth (usually a monologue) with SM, hehe, those days were pretty entertaining. -Adam O Kenneth Grome wrote: >> Performance really comes down to how things >> are structured. Code for scale and I don't see >> any limitations with webdna. >> > > This assumes that it's practical or possible to "code for scale" in webdna all the time. But this is not always possible ... > > In the example I just gave a day or so ago it was practically impossible to "code for scale". Maybe you have not personally experienced this type of situation and that's why you don't see any limitations in webdna, but I have seen this situation -- more than once -- and it's not a fun situation to be in when you love webdna and want to use it for everything. > > In my recent example the data came from another source -- a source that uses FMPro as its original database. This is not some little company either, it is the leader in its industry. > > To make this data work in webdna means exporting it as tab-delimited text files, then using those resulting flat files -- and whatever coding techniques are available in webdna -- to get the search results required by the client. The problem is that the data is not structured for efficient use of webdna (by any stretch of the imagination) so webdna is pathetically slow when doing the kind of searches the client requires. > > As the web developer on this project, I did not have authorization to go in and reformat these multi-megabyte data files in order to "make them work" with webdna. This would have taken 10-20 times as long as trying another software. Besides, I was not convinced that webdna would perform as well as MySQL even if we did go in and reformat the databases to optimize them for webdna -- because I've seen slow performance in similar situations before when using webdna on such large data sets (without nested searches) -- and I didn't want the client to have to pay for all that labor only to find that webdna still couldn't handle the task. > > So instead of "coding or scale" which would have meant restructuring the database files that we exported from FMPro, I had my put everything we had into PHP/MySQL. It took him less than 10 hours to do this (at $1.20 an hour for his labor) ... so for about twelve bucks I was able to see that PHP/MySQL was far superior to webdna in this situation. This saved the client hundreds if not thousands of dollars over using a webdna solution. > > The bottom line here is that webdna has serious limitations that make it a poor substitute for MySQL in certain situations. In these situations MySQL and other truly relational data systems are far better suited to the tasks at hand. > > Sincerely, > Kenneth Grome > > owner@kengrome.com > kengrome@gmail.com > www.kengrome.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list
. > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Well said. I love webdna too, and am grateful for how it taught me practical approaches to logic and understanding of programming. I would like to always use webdna, but when not working for a 'webdna company' I am forced to use other technologies, usually php or C#. Webdna reminds me of beta cassette tapes, yeah they were better than VHS, but if not used by the masses many people less subsequent development is devoted to it, thus it eventually gets replaced by something else - survival of the fittest. On a side note I sure miss those days, late nineties, when Ken would go back and forth (usually a monologue) with SM, hehe, those days were pretty entertaining. -Adam O Kenneth Grome wrote: >> Performance really comes down to how things >> are structured. Code for scale and I don't see >> any limitations with webdna. >> > > This assumes that it's practical or possible to "code for scale" in webdna all the time. But this is not always possible ... > > In the example I just gave a day or so ago it was practically impossible to "code for scale". Maybe you have not personally experienced this type of situation and that's why you don't see any limitations in webdna, but I have seen this situation -- more than once -- and it's not a fun situation to be in when you love webdna and want to use it for everything. > > In my recent example the data came from another source -- a source that uses FMPro as its original database. This is not some little company either, it is the leader in its industry. > > To make this data work in webdna means exporting it as tab-delimited text files, then using those resulting flat files -- and whatever coding techniques are available in webdna -- to get the search results required by the client. The problem is that the data is not structured for efficient use of webdna (by any stretch of the imagination) so webdna is pathetically slow when doing the kind of searches the client requires. > > As the web developer on this project, I did not have authorization to go in and reformat these multi-megabyte data files in order to "make them work" with webdna. This would have taken 10-20 times as long as trying another software. Besides, I was not convinced that webdna would perform as well as MySQL even if we did go in and reformat the databases to optimize them for webdna -- because I've seen slow performance in similar situations before when using webdna on such large data sets (without nested searches) -- and I didn't want the client to have to pay for all that labor only to find that webdna still couldn't handle the task. > > So instead of "coding or scale" which would have meant restructuring the database files that we exported from FMPro, I had my put everything we had into PHP/MySQL. It took him less than 10 hours to do this (at $1.20 an hour for his labor) ... so for about twelve bucks I was able to see that PHP/MySQL was far superior to webdna in this situation. This saved the client hundreds if not thousands of dollars over using a webdna solution. > > The bottom line here is that webdna has serious limitations that make it a poor substitute for MySQL in certain situations. In these situations MySQL and other truly relational data systems are far better suited to the tasks at hand. > > Sincerely, > Kenneth Grome > > owner@kengrome.com > kengrome@gmail.com > www.kengrome.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Adam O'Connor
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
WebCatalog 4.0 ? (2000)
shipping formula (2000)
Multiple cart additions (1997)
Passing radio check box value to itself... (2000)
[WebDNA] webdna.us (2008)
RE: creating writefile data from a nested search (1997)
Anyone Using 4DMail (2004)
2.1 Stuff (1998)
WebMerchant 1.6 and SHTML (1997)
Shopping Cart Problems (2000)
NT considerations (1997)
PARAMETER vs. OPERATOR (was The BUG is BACK ...) (1998)
OT - SMSI complaint (2001)
[SearchString] (1998)
Migrating to NT -Reply (1997)
GuestBook example (1997)
time and welcome (1999)
Cart Number Propagation (1997)
WebCatalog (1998)
Re2: Calculating multiple shipping... (1997)