This is always the most generic performance question. Chances are it can scale. It's like people saying can j2ee scale? Of course it can...here's the key...in the right situation. The other consideration is if the code sucks booty, then it's never gonna scale either. So saying 100+ concurrent requests is vague. You answered your own question with the asp performance benchmark. It can get there assuming what you're doing in the code and architecture is tight and well-written. If you're doing transaction intense, IO intense, synchronous calls, then chances are you won't hit the highest benchmarks out there.
Here's why the bridge argument is flawed. Yes, engineers are required to be certified to build bridges. Are engineers required to be certified to build cars? No.
The same type of logic applies to software engineering. Software engineers who are coding for life/death situations must comply to certain standards (FDA for instance). Is certification needed for building a word processor? No. Of course not.
There are attempts to create a certification at a group level (ISO 9001, CMM for instance). These are what most places are trying to get to. Certification at an individual level is too difficult to build a framework for currently. (SEI's PSP is an attempt at it, I understand) Of course, there are large differences between having metrics and having skills, but these are at least steps in the right direction.
Slashdot Mirror
This is always the most generic performance question. Chances are it can scale. It's like people saying can j2ee scale? Of course it can...here's the key...in the right situation. The other consideration is if the code sucks booty, then it's never gonna scale either. So saying 100+ concurrent requests is vague. You answered your own question with the asp performance benchmark. It can get there assuming what you're doing in the code and architecture is tight and well-written. If you're doing transaction intense, IO intense, synchronous calls, then chances are you won't hit the highest benchmarks out there.
Here's why the bridge argument is flawed. Yes,
engineers are required to be certified to build
bridges. Are engineers required to be certified
to build cars? No.
The same type of logic applies to software
engineering. Software engineers who are
coding for life/death situations must comply
to certain standards (FDA for instance). Is
certification needed for building a word
processor? No. Of course not.
There are attempts to create a certification
at a group level (ISO 9001, CMM for instance).
These are what most places are trying to get
to. Certification at an individual level
is too difficult to build a framework for
currently. (SEI's PSP is an attempt at it,
I understand) Of course, there are large
differences between having metrics and having
skills, but these are at least steps in the
right direction.