[matthewmacleod]

I certainly didn't intend to be passive aggressive or attack, apologies if it came over like that.

The point remains though; it's not that the poster doesn't know how to build a 'proper' system in Ruby, but that the frequent articles we see with the theme "we rewrote our system from language X to language Y and it's much better!" are rarely helpful, because (I can't stress this enough) architectural design is vastly more important than what language you are using to implement your system.

This leads to a dangerous bandwagon-jumping faddism where developers start jumping on to the next big thing, because they assume it will solve their problems. We saw exactly that with Ruby, for example; developers assumed that they could escape from the verbosity and enterpriseness of Java just by changing language, ignoring the pitfalls that could be experienced.

PG's 'blub' example is a very useful allegory, but it doesn't apply here. I'm not at all suggesting that Ruby is the perfect solution to all problems, or that using Go is wrong – I use both of them! Just that saying 'Go is better than Ruby for writing web apps because we reimplemented everything and it was faster' is not helpful.

[tessierashpool]

this is a very good point. and this:

We saw exactly that with Ruby, for example; developers assumed that they could escape from the verbosity and enterpriseness of Java just by changing language, ignoring the pitfalls that could be experienced.

this worked for a lot of people until they got to the architectural stuff. but going from Java to Ruby (infinitely nicer) is distinct from going to J2EE to Rails (easier to get started, harder to keep going).