<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The True Genius (and Danger) of Google App Engine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gilhildebrand.com/afterthought/2008/04/the-true-genius-and-danger-of-google-appengine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gilhildebrand.com/afterthought/2008/04/the-true-genius-and-danger-of-google-appengine/</link>
	<description>A marketing blog for engineers.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Gil</title>
		<link>http://www.gilhildebrand.com/afterthought/2008/04/the-true-genius-and-danger-of-google-appengine/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>Gil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:05:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gilhildebrand.com/afterthought/?p=22#comment-20</guid>
		<description>Hey Justin,

I'm not quite sure what you mean by schema-less development. 

If by schema you mean database, then yes, App Engine certainly makes sense. Although I can't think of many apps that don't have some sort of database requirement.

If by schema you mean programming language, then I don't see how App Engine solves that problem. 

My bet is that we'll soon start to see third party libraries which augment some of that missing functionality. But in the case of my MAX() example less is more. If I have 1 million records, that means I have to pull down every single record before I can even begin calculating. 

For App Engine to really work, there has to be more innovation in the offering itself. Not every problem is easily solved at the code level.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Justin,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not quite sure what you mean by schema-less development. </p>
<p>If by schema you mean database, then yes, App Engine certainly makes sense. Although I can&#8217;t think of many apps that don&#8217;t have some sort of database requirement.</p>
<p>If by schema you mean programming language, then I don&#8217;t see how App Engine solves that problem. </p>
<p>My bet is that we&#8217;ll soon start to see third party libraries which augment some of that missing functionality. But in the case of my MAX() example less is more. If I have 1 million records, that means I have to pull down every single record before I can even begin calculating. </p>
<p>For App Engine to really work, there has to be more innovation in the offering itself. Not every problem is easily solved at the code level.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin D-Z</title>
		<link>http://www.gilhildebrand.com/afterthought/2008/04/the-true-genius-and-danger-of-google-appengine/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin D-Z</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:16:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gilhildebrand.com/afterthought/?p=22#comment-12</guid>
		<description>Although this doesn't directly pertain to Google, do you think that the value of a schema-less development will be a benefit that might offset the join/sorting issues (which are much more easily overcome in code)?  Perhaps this will the the case for more hobbyist apps, where not as much complex sorting, math and joining is needed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although this doesn&#8217;t directly pertain to Google, do you think that the value of a schema-less development will be a benefit that might offset the join/sorting issues (which are much more easily overcome in code)?  Perhaps this will the the case for more hobbyist apps, where not as much complex sorting, math and joining is needed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
