Comments on: Google App Engine: The good, the bad, and the ugly?

By: Google App Engine limitations, and how to get around them | Digitalistic - Mashup or die trying

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:40:57 +0000

[...] limitations There are more limitations, read Google App Engine: The good, the bad, and the ugly? for a more detailed list. Just keep in mind that some of the limitations mentioned in that post [...]

By: systemsplanet.com

systemsplanet.com — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:35:48 +0000

no https is a killer for me.
Any apps that handle sensitive info (like
personal info, ssn, credit card info, etc).

By: William Vambenepe's blog

William Vambenepe's blog — Sat, 31 May 2008 22:51:55 +0000

Google App Engine: less is more…

“If you have a stove, a saucepan and a bottle of cold water, how can you make boiling water?”
If you ask this question to a mathematician, they’ll think about it a while, and finally tell you to pour the water in the saucepan, light u…

By: Development, Eclipse, Google, Web and other forecasts « Mantrid’s Weblog

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:45:23 +0000

[...] look at Google App Engine. Emphasizes its distinctness from typical development enviroment. And another one worth [...]

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:41:32 +0000

Great post. I agree on your points on PHP/Ruby/RoR. I don’t know Python, so this is as good a reason as any to start learning.

By: friarminor

friarminor — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:19:38 +0000

For Google, it sure is a big start. But I will be extremely surprised if they don’t venture supporting Ruby on Rails and trample over upstarts such as Morph eXchange in that category.

But on the bright side, platform and on-demand deployments are really interesting..

Best.
alain

By: Alex Martelli

Alex Martelli — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:31:41 +0000

Excellent summary Doug — I wish more than 1% of the posters had as much insight into the technical AND (indirectly) business issues of App Engine as you do…!-)

Alex

By: sean

sean — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:55:32 +0000

google offers a platform that everybody could use, it saves much pain of setting up the environment if you just want to make a simple application.
not flexible enough for big companys, but it’s good enough for individuals.

By: Seb

Seb — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:18:24 +0000

Great article, Doug. I guess I’m somewhere in between all those 600 posts. Awesome technical analysis.

BTW, I’d love to see RoR support, but don’t believe that will happen, at least not any time soon: it would be almost a waste of their resources and too much unnecessary risk at this point in time where they don’t yet know how big this will get. They will probably stay put with one language for quite a while.

By: justinb flavin

justinb flavin — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:05:27 +0000

as a seasoned PHP developer (8 years) , I would agree with the statements above regarding Ruby.

PHP is not a general purpose language - its PRIMARY motivation is for the generation of web pages, and thats IT. nothing more, and nothing less. it’s entire philosophy is built around that - just ask Rasmus Lerdorf.

What Google has done is almost PHP-ify the python language , by restricting it to the requirements and restrictions of working within the Google platform.

So, in a way, Google ain’t going for the Ruby on Rails space - it’s not. It’s more of a Google Python alternative to PHP - with the aim of encouraging more newbie programmers to give Python a shot, instead of or in addition to, the shallow-curve PHP.

That’s why I think Google AppEngine is a piece of genius - it’s a shallow-curve subset of Python , with all the power of GQL behind it… the datastore stuff is just awesome in terms of it truely being in a “cloud”…