4 ms·
The point that Ruby is memory intensive vs other things like Nodejs and thus you are shooting yourself in the foot using it applies only to a very small subset
by wdewind 11y ago
The point that Ruby is memory intensive vs other things like Nodejs and thus you are shooting yourself in the foot using it applies only to a very small subset of businesses, like Scribd, who require absolutely massive scale in order to be profitable. If your unit economics are different (and many are, substantially), Ruby is really not going to be the bottleneck in your scaling.
- jshen 11y agoYou can also scale ruby fine if the content is fairly static. It's only if it's massive scale and dynamic when you start to run into problems.
- tobltobs 11y agoIf your content is fairly static, everything will scale.
- jshen 11y agoand you can often architect it so that most things are static! HN can be fairly static, right?
- nathancahill 11y agoYou can scale anything[0] if your content is fairly static. [0] https://github.com/avleen/bashttpd https://github.com/avleen/bashttpd
- romanovcode 11y agoAFAIK Nodejs is pretty damn memory intensive and does not do CPU tasks good as well. I believe Nodejs popularity is pure overhype. Like no other language has async capabilities and implement it 10 times better cought Go, C# (and probably many others that I don't know)...
- mercer 11y agoFrom what I understand one of the main value propositions of Node in regards to async is that async is the default in the entire ecosystem. In fact, I vaguely recall Node's creator explain that he chose javascript precisely because it didn't already have an existing server-side ecosystem, so it could be async everywhere from the start. But by all means correct me if I'm wrong.