For what it's worth, I realize there are extreme cases like Apple, Amazon, Google, and so on. I don't think most people are in this category. The big guys can also afford to manage the complexity of large applications. The group I'm talking about is made up mostly of smaller teams. In that case, I think you're better off using a more abstracted solution and investing in hardware if necessary.
In other words, don't chase efficiency for the sake of being efficient. Having an application which works but potentially needs more hardware at least gives you the option to deploy. I suspect that if we were to graph how many web-based software projects are never completed versus how many outstrip available hardware, the data would speak for itself. :)
@Ben: Cocoa apps may have been dicey on an ancient G3 under 10.1, but those users age out without your help
Good point, though I'd also add that the OS and the frameworks got faster as well.
by Scott Stevenson — Feb 06
In other words, don't chase efficiency for the sake of being efficient. Having an application which works but potentially needs more hardware at least gives you the option to deploy. I suspect that if we were to graph how many web-based software projects are never completed versus how many outstrip available hardware, the data would speak for itself. :)
@Ben: Cocoa apps may have been dicey on an ancient G3 under 10.1, but those users age out without your help
Good point, though I'd also add that the OS and the frameworks got faster as well.