4 ms·
No. His argument is "It was fast enough in 2003 and it's gotten faster, so Ruby is fast enough now." He repeats the "it was fast enough in 2003," 3 times in the
by Practicality 10y ago
No. His argument is "It was fast enough in 2003 and it's gotten faster, so Ruby is fast enough now." He repeats the "it was fast enough in 2003," 3 times in the article. I disagree with the premise that fast enough in 2003 is fast enough now.
Adding a vague "it's gotten faster" is not sufficient to mean that it's fast enough for 2016.
It may or may not have improved enough, but either way this argument does not prove that it has.
- mmanfrin 10y agoThe point DHH is trying to make is not that 'Ruby is fast', but that 'Ruby is fast enough' for what people generally need. If you're building some whatsapp-esque messaging platform, then yeah: ruby is not fast enough; but for a majority of the uses that Ruby is used for (building web applications) it is indeed fast enough to build enterprise-level applications.
- PeterisP 10y agoSomething that was fast enough in 2003 is sufficient to say that it's fast enough to 2016 - even if nothing has improved, it's going to be an order of magnitude faster simply because of hardware improvements. There are some technologies that were impractically slow in 2003 but have become 'fast enough' in 2016 either by improvements of tech or just by having more cpu/ram/gpu power - but not the other way around.