Well, you are, aren't you? I mean, if my comment enlightens you, then take what you can from it. But if it doesn't, why the fuck should you care about it? It's an Internet comment. Either have fun with it or go find something you legit enjoy.
I found the tone of the title and the whole article arrogant, rather than playful.
I can't help wondering at the small view of the world implied in the title. People are still creating interesting software applications that are not web apps. Those people won't give a damn about Heroku, and they are not idiots.
See, this is why it's a playful title and not a literal one, which is why so many literal-minded people don't like it. If you really take everything you read at face value, you're missing out on a lot of fun frivolities to be had. Life should not be so serious that a title of an article irritates you like that.
I did read it. I have no problem with the article (and I actually think both Heroku and RoR are brilliant), but the title is so DHH-like I couldn't resist.. I hope you don't take any offense, honestly none intended.
No, but Heroku is pretty well known as a Ruby on Rails hosting service. Its had several articles available here on HN and has quite a bit of hype. Just saying, you are probably not an idiot. :)
I honestly never truly understood the value of services like engineyard and heroku (more accurately i guess i think i understand the value but am surprised by why so many would need it). It is quite a price premium you pay to save yourself from doing something that is pretty simple -- deploying rails, at the cost of losing full control. When I had to use engineyard for a client, I was really shocked by the prices and while they were really fast on support I just found it tedious to have to get someone else to try something that doesn't fit entirely into their 'optimized' stack of things.
you save a lot more than just deploying rails. You no longer have to administer a server, and don't under estimate how much work that is. You can create a server and maybe get away with administering it for a year or two, but eventually it will bite you in the ass.
The question people have to ask themselves is at what point is the cost of these services greater than the cost of administering their own servers. My feeling is that these services are great if you're running a small to medium site. If you have a large site, or run lots of small sites, or some combination, then you're probably better off doing it yourself.
Also, this post shows someone that has gotten taken by how easy deployment is on Heroku. It's good but the article mentions that the author took another look "yesterday". Still riding that high.
Please stop using emotionally charged words like "awesome" to describe something. It's pointless but then again I'm referring to an article that calls me names. Heh.
I've asked Heroku employees about that, and they said that their infrastructure would not be the best for Comet long-polling applications. I'm sure they've developed everything assuming that requests would be short and if they were long then something is wrong.
I'm an idiot for so many reasons that not using Heroku doesn't even break into my top ten list. As such, I'm not terribly worried about not using Heroku. In any case, thanks for reminding me that I'm an idiot.
Actually, I have used Heroku. The major con of the service is that you are losing control to Heroku which also loses control to Amazon's EC2 service (for example, inability to assign multiple IP addresses to an instance leads to $100 / month extra if you need secure pages.) The major pro for me is the ease of getting into it. Just a quick signup and a free level for getting started.
37 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadPerhaps "Heroku in Ruby solves <problem X>" ?
But you're right, we can take ourselves a bit seriously on HN.
I can't help wondering at the small view of the world implied in the title. People are still creating interesting software applications that are not web apps. Those people won't give a damn about Heroku, and they are not idiots.
The question people have to ask themselves is at what point is the cost of these services greater than the cost of administering their own servers. My feeling is that these services are great if you're running a small to medium site. If you have a large site, or run lots of small sites, or some combination, then you're probably better off doing it yourself.
There's no way to implement a Comet solution on Heroku as far as I can determine. Please tell me I'm wrong!
Please stop using emotionally charged words like "awesome" to describe something. It's pointless but then again I'm referring to an article that calls me names. Heh.
More to the point, you can run any Rack-based app or app framework.
I checked carefully and it worked fine on my computer.
I wrote them about it and never got an answer.
I waited and they never fixed it so I went with a host.
Appertainly they've fixed it but I'm happy where I am.
www.jgsbws.com
Actually, I have used Heroku. The major con of the service is that you are losing control to Heroku which also loses control to Amazon's EC2 service (for example, inability to assign multiple IP addresses to an instance leads to $100 / month extra if you need secure pages.) The major pro for me is the ease of getting into it. Just a quick signup and a free level for getting started.