The issue with Rails for me wasn't the database bottleneck. It was the ActiveRecord. It was using far too much memory and was taking up the bulk of the page loading time. After i migrated the app to my php framework, I downgraded to from a 2GBz 1GB RAM server to a 2GHz 512MB RAM server and i still get a performance boost. Running the rails app on the 512MB server was painfully slow.
Writing your own framework is a good compromise if it can give you that performance boost that the other frameworks can't give you. I've tried the other PHP frameworks and the best page loading time i got was 0.9s.
Don't assume that everyone who uses PHP don't use a framework. Anyone who uses a PHP framework can get similar development speed as someone who uses Django/Rails.
There's a reason why smart people uses PHP instead of Rails: Most notably it's proven to scale (Yahoo, Facebook). I have personally tried Rails and love it to bits. But the performance issue is not worth it. In the end, i wrote my own stripped down Rails-like framework in PHP in 1 week and migrated the app in a few days. Performance boost was very noticeable. (Avg page loading time dropped from 1.5 secs to 0.3s)
And to those anti-PHP fascists, yes it's possible to write neat PHP code. There is no scattered SQL in my app since i follow Rails' MVC structure. And since I code "functionally" and don't use PHP OO features, so its half-baked object system doesn't bother me.
I don't mean pure functional. I mean i use lots of functions instead of object methods. I don't like mixing data with functions.
i hate OO programming because of inheritance. It pissed me off to have to look through layers and layers of parents to search for a method. Stick with good ol' functions for easy debugging.
I'm seeing a trend of hackers looking for fellow hackers online to apply for the Ycombinator program. I was wondering how effective a partnership would such an arrangement yield?
2 dudes. Total oblivion to each other's quirks. Joining force to undertake a significant project. How realistic is that?
Also, would Ycombinator have less regards for such hastily put-together teams, irrespective of their skills/ideas?
And yes. You heard me right. I've talked to a number of so called internet biz dev "pros" and they actually advocate outsourcing site development to offshore places and concentrate on marketing. I was like, WTF? Now i know why the successful web startups all originate from hackers. These internet biz dev "pros" just don't get it
The most uncomfortable thing is that my non-techie co-founder actually agrees with this thought. Maybe it's time for me to find another cofounder.
You can really tell the diff between an outsourced site and a non-outsourced site. An outsourced site will most likely be .aspx (India's fav), have a rigid design/structure. Eg. http://scriptovia.com
An in-house version usually has its own unique design/identity Eg. scribd.com
i think most of the business fogeys don't understand the importance of having your own in house technical team. these fogeys actually think outsourcing development to offshore teams is the best way to go.
Right. Technology is the lifeblood of most successful web startups. So when was it good to outsource your lifeblood to a bunch of unknowns miles away?
Sure. It's damn cool that you can create your wonderful product at a cost of only $1000. But should you reveal the truth to the VC? Or should you lie to them that it cost $50,000? The reason is if you tell the truth, the VC might think since your cost is so low, the valuation of the company they'll give would be low too
I'm using the same logic as a buyer knowing the cost of a supplier. If you were told the goods cost $1, the likelihood of you bidding $100 is lower than if you were told the goods cost $80.
speech-to-text. i don't see how high a barrier of entry is this. bmw and the other manufacturers would most likely incorporate this in their electronic systems if it becomes popular.
Now, i am sure some of you have encountered a good-for-nothing co-founder who seems like a good fit early on but turns out to be a disappointment as time dictates. Assuming you've decided enough is enough and you decided to look for a new co-founder, what should be your course of action. Note that your existing co-founder has some equity in your startup.
Should you start a new company with the new co-founder replicating the old startup (which should take about a month at most) or stick with the old company?
P.S. I'm assuming a web startup here. So replication here means doing a similar site.
I have yet to see any true ipo-able web business to appear so far. When i mean truly ipo-able, i mean it has a REAL business model and one that can scale to billions. Something like Paypal or Ebay. Let's face it, Youtube, Facebook are all toys. They have eyeballs but no scalable business model.
The best hope i've seen so far is Prosper.com. It doesn't have the massive eyeballs yet but hey, at least their biz model is scalable.
Does this mean that all the good billion-dollar ipo-able web ideas have been taken up? Is this it?