[BNM] "Enterprise" architecture versus other stuff (Was: Re: PHP consulting (sort of...))

[Jay Caines-Gooby]

On 1/30/07, Andy Sanders <Andy.Sanders at semantico.com> wrote:

> Jay Caines-Gooby wrote:
> > I don't really "get" what a full-stack .NET or even J2EE deployment
> > gives you over this, architecurally and from a complexity vs cost
> > basis; case in point when Microsoft tried to migrate Hotmail from Perl
> > cgi-bin, mod_perl and Oracle to IIS + SQL Server and it took them over
> > two years to get there...
>
> Two years as compared to what?  Did they put the original together in a
> week and then never touch it again?

Nope, they had 8 week release cycles, allegedly.

> Anyway, that aside, migrations are always costly.  If they've got a
> large, existing system built in .net, they should probably stick with
> it.  Moving to *any* other language is going to require a complete
> re-write.  How many years of cheaper hosting will it take to re-coup
> that loss, and for what useful benefit?

I'm not arguing with that (subject line changed to reflect this)

My question was what does a .NET/J2EE stack give you architecturally
and cost/complexity-wise over what is essentially the same thing, but
built out of bits.

i.e. how and when does a correctly architected LAMP or even Perl +
MySQL + Apache set-up stop being appropriate, and when .NET/J2EE would
be appropriate?

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the "Enterprise argument"

> Finally, you should review all available platforms when deciding what to
> move to.  Not just go to language 'x' cos some guy on the third floor
> liked it when he built a database for his DVD collection.

Indeed you should, but you never know, it might just be the right
solution anyway:

http://c2.com/xp/YouArentGonnaNeedIt.html
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DoTheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork


-- 
Jay Caines-Gooby
jay at gooby.org
+44 (0)7956 182625
skype:jaygooby
http://snipperoo.com
http://blog.snipperoo.com