|
|
|
|
|
|
by byroot
3422 days ago
|
|
|
Why do you question Rails while the entire report is about Postgres only ? And as someone working on one of the biggest and oldest Rails codebase out there, I can tell you that in term of scaling, Rails is the least of our concerns. Sure it's not as efficient, so it's gonna cost you more in CPU and RAM, but it's trivial to scale horizontally. The real worry are the databases, they are fundamentally harder to scale without tradeoffs. As for the patched Ruby, we used to have one too (but our patches landed upstream so now we run vanilla). It's not about allowing to scale at all. It's simply that once you reach a certain scale, it's profitable to pay a few engineers to improve Ruby's efficiency. If you have 500 app servers, a 1 or 2% performance gain will save enough to pay those engineers salary. |
|
|
Apps like Gitlab and Discourse that depend on hundreds of gems and require end users to have complex build environment and compile software are I think operating a broken user hostile model.
The potential for compilation failures, version mismatches and Ruby oddities like RVM is so gigantic with hundreds of man hours wasted one is left to conclude they may actually want to run a hosting business and not have users deploy themselves.
Compare that to Go or even PHP where things are so orders of magnitude simper that it is not even the same thing. To deal with this complexity you now have containers but have you solved the complexity or added another layer of complexity? There are technical but I think also social factors at play here.