|
From: Joe Pluta <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com> > > ===> no argument, really. I was just not convinced by your very > > strong statement that C/S is 'far MORE' efficient. C/S is a 'far > > BETTER' approach for many other reasons. > > I think I've restated my position adequately... C/S and monolithic > applications are "roughly equivalent", but servers have opportunities for > performance enhancements not available to monolithic techniques. you COULD do similar things (caching of small tables) in a monolithic program. > And, as > you pointed out, there are other benefits, not the least of which is > prograsmmer productivity. Remove the word "far" from my original statement, > and we can quit quibbling. > remove MORE (especially CAPITALIZED) as well and we agree. The benefits are not efficiency, but a host of other things, and they are real. One of the most important is that it makes it a lot easier to get off the platform. :-)
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.