> Ruby guys can always do the argument "Our code required 50% more servers, but it increases developer productivity by 50%, and since developers cost more than servers - it is a win".
I've always wondered on the ROI of saving server cost at the expense of velocity. After all, server cost is for the foreseeable future, but development is just once (yes maintenance, but that is very small if you stop adding features).
I've always wondered on the ROI of saving server cost at the expense of velocity. After all, server cost is for the foreseeable future, but development is just once (yes maintenance, but that is very small if you stop adding features).