Skip to main content

How To Turn Web Development Around (Part 1)

Something is bothering me this past week. I've been taking some stabs at reducing the maximum render time of a site, when the caches are all empty. I cache certain components and queries, but when the caches are primed the render time is under 500ms and I think that's pretty good. That worst case senario, however, is just not acceptable. Worse than a couple seconds. That isn't time that should be taken. I dug in and found a really bad pattern.

It isn't hard to make a page faster, but the default is to be as slow as possible. We have to understand this pattern. I am looking at this in relation to Django, but I have a feeling there are similar patterns other places.

The common tagging application is a good example. It makes it really easy to tag objects, count them, query by them, and build those clever little clouds. You're given lots of new wrappers for all the common tag-related queries you'd need to do. This may be a source of the problem. We've gotten into a rut of complacency with components that give us more rope than we need to hang ourselves. Abstraction hides the cost of operations.

Are we asking the really simple question: Why are we pulling when we could be pushing? With one of the most read-heavy information systems in the world, everything revolves around the needs and demands of the almighty HTTP request. A browser asks a question and then we go and figure out the answer. We are, by default, building our software around the read when we should be building around the write.

Caching is lazy. We should be pro-active. How often is a tag cloud going to change? Only when the taggings change, of course. No page request should ever generate a tag cloud. We should be building the cloud, as a static html snippet, every time the tags change. When we're actually rendering a page, we should just insert that current snippet.

The problem is that we make lots of tiny little increases in the pulling we do and we do it all over the place. We hide it behind innocent looking functions and properties and end up using a few of those inside one element that gets repeated and it piles up. The amount of work in one page becomes insane, for what that page is. The problem isn't that it is so difficult to do something better, but that the default should be better. I would like like some practical answers to making that default better.

Comments

Dave Richards said…
Sure, but you shouldn't blame the tag app for that. The best way to make it easy to build a cacheable snippet is the best way to plonk it straight into page.

With great power and that...

It's definitely something web frameworks and developers should pay far more attention to, though. Django, Rails and their ilk do make ignoring scalability as easy as PHP made ignoring good app design.

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…