From: Matthew Berg <galt@...>
Date: 2005-06-22T22:22:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Runtime vs Development

On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 12:06 +0900, gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
> Assume some-other-language is 10x faster than Ruby.
> 
> If a project implemented via some-other-language
> requires 5 dedicated systems @ $2,000/each
> ($10,000 total), then Ruby requires 50 dedicated
> systems and $100,000 worth of equipment to accomplish
> the same task.
> 
> Now assume a Ruby programmer is 3 times more efficient
> than some-other programmer and assume a programmer salary of
> $80,000/year (including overhead).  And assume that the
> programming task will take three man-years to develop
> in some-other-language.
> 
> So this hypothetical project implemented via Ruby costs:
> $80,000 in labor and $100,000 in equipment for $180,000.
> The same project implemented in some-other-language costs
> $240,000 for labor and $10,000 in equipment for $250,000 total.
> 
> So Ruby is 10 times slower than some-other-language but
> you've got $70,000 more in your pocket when your done.
> 
> Moral:  Hardware is cheap, people aren't.

You forgot a _lot_ of costs - network (switches, cabling, punch downs),
racks, colocation space, power, air conditioning, etc.

And programming is largely an initial cost, whereas administration,
monitoring and maintenance are on going concerns.

-- 
Matthew Berg <galt@gothpoodle.com>