No, it was wrong.Crissa wrote:No, it's not 'wrong': It's overly simplified.
Specifically, CPUs are always taking on *more* functionality and single instructions are still being made faster.
Moderator: Moderators
I hear that solid state disks are much more expensive per gigabyte than normal hard disks. I've heard about people putting an SSD and a normal hard disk in the same computer, and putting the operating system on the SSD to speed startup. Does that, like, work? Does it cost a lot, is it easy, are there a lot of things that can go wrong with it, is it recommended?Blasted wrote:Of course, for the most part, SSDs have removed the reason to defrag and if you're obsessing over moving files to the edge of the disk, I think they're very much worth the cash.
I use an SSD/HDD setup on my personal computer and it works a treat. Apps, OS on the SSD, data on the HDD.Gelare wrote: I hear that solid state disks are much more expensive per gigabyte than normal hard disks. I've heard about people putting an SSD and a normal hard disk in the same computer, and putting the operating system on the SSD to speed startup. Does that, like, work? Does it cost a lot, is it easy, are there a lot of things that can go wrong with it, is it recommended?
No, it's not. There are four basic method for changing how processors get 'better', and I outlined them.Blasted wrote:No, it was wrong.
Specifically, CPUs are always taking on *more* functionality and single instructions are still being made faster.
Each iteration of the current series of cpus from Intel and AMD have offered extra instructions. So yes, they have added functionality.Crissa wrote: No, it's not.
...
Not every iteration is faster or have more functionality.
The same argument can be made for any x86 processor. Extra functions have never been the primary manner of increasing performance. Still, it has been done on each iteration of new chips.As for PCs The instruction set from 8086 to today has not much changed. In other words, some of us have been playing with a 8bit OS for about three decades - because we get more performance from adding layers of caches or exporting processing to daughter components, or bringing them on-board to the central chip. It varies.
It works just fine. You have to spend a couple of hundred dollars even on a small SSD though. Whether that is worth the cost depends on you. A basic outline:Gelare wrote:I hear that solid state disks are much more expensive per gigabyte than normal hard disks. I've heard about people putting an SSD and a normal hard disk in the same computer, and putting the operating system on the SSD to speed startup. Does that, like, work? Does it cost a lot, is it easy, are there a lot of things that can go wrong with it, is it recommended?
Well, I am working at a private company in Germany, but Rails is fine for business-critical applications in my opinion. Sure, Java is more "enterprisey" (whatever that means) and most importantly faster, but at least for our needs Rails is great. We are basically trading application speed for greater development speed. Since Ruby/Rails performance is a drop in the bucket compared to database accesses anyway the cost is negligible and the speedup in development is huge. I am sure my Java is rusty, but I can't even imagine attempting some of the stuff I get working well enough to demonstrate a feature in a couple of hours. Also I can only talk about Rails, I've never used Grails.cthulhu wrote:Is Grails, Rails, Groovy etc ready for prime time in a -smallmedium sized government agency as the applications platform for business critical applications, rather than a more traditional choice based on the IBM/Oracle Java + Websphere/Oracle BPM stack or a MS .NET Biztalk/Sharepoint stack
I was under the impression that sharepoint lets you do something like picking a data source and making it available via SOAP and mentally filed it under "unneeded graphical interfaces". I have to admit that I have a tendency to zone out when confronted with buzzwords though, so I is likely I have missed something.cthulhu wrote:I'm just not sure how can you match (can you?) sharepoint + biztalk server or Oracle BPM/Fusion vs what the hell in grails? Do I jettison Sharepoint/Oracle BPM, or does grails only come in effectively to do the intergration of the relevant components across the applications stack?
Yup. Or rather, in ruby. Rails is just a huge set of defaults to get you up and running. All coding is done in Ruby (internally) and HTML/Javascript (the UI and presentation).cthulhu wrote:So do you build the business process management layer in rails?
If it's just stuff in a database, access the database.cthulhu wrote:How do you intergrated into legacy apps?
Do you know anything among the lines of Shoes that is not continually in beta, or at least works on both Linux and Windows? Preferably ruby, but I am willing to look into any language that is not too verbose.krainboltgreene wrote:Ask me anything (Even RPG related).
Murtak wrote:Yup. Or rather, in ruby. Rails is just a huge set of defaults to get you up and running. All coding is done in Ruby (internally) and HTML/Javascript (the UI and presentation).cthulhu wrote:So do you build the business process management layer in rails?
If it's just stuff in a database, access the database.cthulhu wrote:How do you intergrated into legacy apps?
If it is some application you can exchange data with, do that.
If you are willing to do some low level programming, call the old application from Ruby.
Otherwise you need to reimplement the old application.
And that is what I don't see when I look at the homepages for those products. What do they actually do that makes them great at integrating anything? How do they help you so to access your legacy applications? All I see is marketing and buzzwords - and that immediately makes me think the product is useless.cthulhu wrote:Thats the bit I don't see - biztalk or fusion gives great intergration options.
Okay, scenario:Murtak wrote:And that is what I don't see when I look at the homepages for those products. What do they actually do that makes them great at integrating anything? How do they help you so to access your legacy applications? All I see is marketing and buzzwords - and that immediately makes me think the product is useless.cthulhu wrote:Thats the bit I don't see - biztalk or fusion gives great intergration options.
An example:
I have an old application, let's say someone wrote a single user Access application, just a couple of dozen tables and some views and entry forms. This was then handed out to a hundred employees and used for a couple of years. Now it is time to pool all the data into a single intranet application, completely redo the presentation but keep / reimplement the logic. However other applications still accesses one of the access databases, so you need to synchronize to that DB. Talking directly to the other applications is not possible.
How does Biztalk help me here?
Check this out: http://rethinkdb.com/One of my favorite internet services I use has had the entire database and program stored on gigabytes of solid state memory for twenty years... Although when it started it wasn't possible to /have/ gigabytes of RAM.
First off, Grails is a web framework built with the Groovy language (OOP Java). Rails is a web framework built on Ruby.Is Grails, Rails, Groovy etc ready for prime time in a -smallmedium sized government agency as the applications platform for business critical applications, rather than a more traditional choice based on the IBM/Oracle Java + Websphere/Oracle BPM stack or a MS .NET Biztalk/Sharepoint stack
I'm actually surprised to see someone who doesn't think Shoes is an Ruby GUI Library.Do you know anything among the lines of Shoes that is not continually in beta, or at least works on both Linux and Windows? Preferably ruby, but I am willing to look into any language that is not too verbose.
Because Java is faster than Ruby. Much faster. And as far as I know know, Java-based frameworks are the de-facto corporate standard. Of course Ruby speed often does not matter much, algorithm choice trumps language speed and maintainability is more important than raw speed any day of the week.krainboltgreene wrote:2. Why in the world would you compare Rails to Java and say Java is "faster"?
Yeah, the question is though, is it worth plugging them in ontop of a .NET or Java driven IBM/Oracle or MS stack, what can they replace in the middleware, BPM and apps server space and will they have an impact on my DB requirements.krainboltgreene wrote:Wow, lots of questions!
Check this out: http://rethinkdb.com/One of my favorite internet services I use has had the entire database and program stored on gigabytes of solid state memory for twenty years... Although when it started it wasn't possible to /have/ gigabytes of RAM.
First off, Grails is a web framework built with the Groovy language (OOP Java). Rails is a web framework built on Ruby.Is Grails, Rails, Groovy etc ready for prime time in a -smallmedium sized government agency as the applications platform for business critical applications, rather than a more traditional choice based on the IBM/Oracle Java + Websphere/Oracle BPM stack or a MS .NET Biztalk/Sharepoint stack
Grails and Rails are about as similar as Apples and Oranges. That is to say: They're both frameworks. Frameworks are a Big Fucking Deal when you start talking about the weight category that Rails exists in. Rails is used by a whole bunch of start up companies, like Twitter or YelloPages.
Grails not so much. Grails is, however, backed by a rather large company.
Here's what Rails does: It makes development easier /as long as you understand OOP, REST, and Ruby/.