I also found the "or similar practices that the industry seems to love" coming across as a bit vague and even arrogant.
On the other hand, I think that they have earned bragging rights - we're talking about a site that has massive scale and reach, and has a reputation for being a very efficient system. I appreciate that people like them share their views, even if they are contrarian and a touch arrogant.
> they chose to use a language that back in 2000's wasn't designed for performance and so they paid the price of using it for performance and didn't want to pay the scale out price.
In terms of more performant languages at the time what could have they picked? C++? It sounds like they would've lost a lot of the conveniences that a framework like .net gave them. Isn't the fact that they avoided paying the scale out price remarkable?
On the other hand, I think that they have earned bragging rights - we're talking about a site that has massive scale and reach, and has a reputation for being a very efficient system. I appreciate that people like them share their views, even if they are contrarian and a touch arrogant.
> they chose to use a language that back in 2000's wasn't designed for performance and so they paid the price of using it for performance and didn't want to pay the scale out price.
In terms of more performant languages at the time what could have they picked? C++? It sounds like they would've lost a lot of the conveniences that a framework like .net gave them. Isn't the fact that they avoided paying the scale out price remarkable?