5 ms·

You know what's fast? Learning Ruby. You know what's also fast? Rails development! I've tried Golang and played around with Node. They're fast, sure. The respe

by joshmn 10y ago

You know what's fast? Learning Ruby. You know what's also fast? Rails development! I've tried Golang and played around with Node. They're fast, sure. The respective frameworks just don't compare. Ruby (and Rails) scales just fine for 99.281% of things. You just need to throw money at it. And that's a great thing. A business's success will never depend on of the speed of a language or framework. It just doesn't work like that. What matters is how quickly you're able to iterate and evolve a product. Ruby (and Rails' ecosystem) allows me to not have to reinvent the wheel for mostly everything. Authentication? Devise. ORM? ActiveRecord. Background processing? ActiveJob. Caching? It's there. Want awesome front-end performance without having to basically rewrite your entire app and learn another framework and manage its dependencies? Turbolinks, and it has matured beautifully. Basecamp has its performance anecdotes written in history that we can all reference. And Basecamp also has had great success. Point being is that a business is a business. The speed of a product cannot and should not be blamed for how successful a business is or isn't. I love you, DH2, and thank you Matz. I love you too.

chrshawkes 10y ago
precisely the reasons why I use Django.
zer00eyz 10y ago
>>Ruby (and Rails) scales just fine for 99.281% of things. You just need to throw money at it. >> Basecamp also has had great success. Basecamp is a great SAS business, you can tie utilization to revenue. Throwing money at the scaling problem (horizontal) is completely realistic in that scenario. If you can't tie utilization directly to revenue, if your a pure service like twitter, or an online store with a bad browse vs buy ratio ruby is a BIG liability. So is ruby fast enough? It depends. Its a business decision, not a technology one, and one I would have a hard time justifying for a lot of startups.
- davidw 10y ago
  > you can tie utilization to revenue This is a critical aspect. If it's purely ad-driven, you probably have very little money coming in for the number of pages you crank out, so you need to optimize them a lot. If you're charging for your app - which you should be in a lot of cases - then something like Rails is likely ok. The latter case is much more likely outside of Silicon Valley/VC-fueled startups.
  - zer00eyz 10y ago
    Even then I think it is a hard sell. Lets say that the gain you realize from writing in another language is 10% of your infrastructure costs. It might not matter day one. At some point that will represent a significant sum of money, in either absolute or relative terms.
    - davidw 10y ago
      Premature optimization and all that... Worry about it when it looks like it might matter. Worry way, way more about building the right product at the right price for your customers, and adding the right features.
  - aantix 10y ago
    Hardware is cheap. Developers are not.
  - SZJX 10y ago
    > If you're charging for your app - which you should be in a lot of cases I think it really depends. Many of the most successful businesses thrive purely on ads. Also you'll have to consider which market you're targeting. In the US many people maybe are used to paying a reasonable amount, but in many developing countries people just won't use it if it's a paid app.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- zpe 10y ago
  A few years ago my side project (and my second ever ruby/rails project) unexpectedly became quite popular. Last couple of years it's been doing about 50,000 (user facing) api requests per second during high load, with almost a million concurrent users. It's 99% rails. We (me and a second guy) have ran this system on ~10 (cheap) servers, five of which run the actual rails app. The rails app has probably been the easiest component to scale for us. We obviously do some caching - but it's not like our database could live without that caching anyways. And even though we have been an ad-financed bootstrapped company the hosting/hw costs has been very manageable. There are probably many valid reasons to chose something else than rails, but I wanted to share my experience w.r.t. making it work for our non-SAS needs.
  - zer00eyz 10y ago
    I love stories like this, as they can be Illuminating, and I'm curious for more answers. 1. profitable? Is it your day job or Side job or a "lifestyle business", Pays for my beer... 2. I would love a number next to cheap ($5? $20) 3. Where are you located, and is that the market your serving. Because I live around Silicon Valley, my perception of what your saying might be really different from what it actually is... is cheep $20 a month, or is it $5?
    - zpe 10y ago
      1. Employing twenty people and making a profit. 2. Per app server we paid less than the cost of a macbook pro. Between 0.001 and 0.0015 USD in hardware costs per thousand ad views, which makes it irrelevant to the company bottom line. 3. Europe, global-ish market.

by joshmn 10y ago

chrshawkes 10y ago

precisely the reasons why I use Django.

zer00eyz 10y ago

>>Ruby (and Rails) scales just fine for 99.281% of things. You just need to throw money at it. >> Basecamp also has had great success. Basecamp is a great SAS business, you can tie utilization to revenue. Throwing money at the scaling problem (horizontal) is completely realistic in that scenario. If you can't tie utilization directly to revenue, if your a pure service like twitter, or an online store with a bad browse vs buy ratio ruby is a BIG liability. So is ruby fast enough? It depends. Its a business decision, not a technology one, and one I would have a hard time justifying for a lot of startups.

davidw 10y ago
> you can tie utilization to revenue This is a critical aspect. If it's purely ad-driven, you probably have very little money coming in for the number of pages you crank out, so you need to optimize them a lot. If you're charging for your app - which you should be in a lot of cases - then something like Rails is likely ok. The latter case is much more likely outside of Silicon Valley/VC-fueled startups.
- zer00eyz 10y ago
  Even then I think it is a hard sell. Lets say that the gain you realize from writing in another language is 10% of your infrastructure costs. It might not matter day one. At some point that will represent a significant sum of money, in either absolute or relative terms.
  - davidw 10y ago
    Premature optimization and all that... Worry about it when it looks like it might matter. Worry way, way more about building the right product at the right price for your customers, and adding the right features.
- aantix 10y ago
  Hardware is cheap. Developers are not.
- SZJX 10y ago
  > If you're charging for your app - which you should be in a lot of cases I think it really depends. Many of the most successful businesses thrive purely on ads. Also you'll have to consider which market you're targeting. In the US many people maybe are used to paying a reasonable amount, but in many developing countries people just won't use it if it's a paid app.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zpe 10y ago
A few years ago my side project (and my second ever ruby/rails project) unexpectedly became quite popular. Last couple of years it's been doing about 50,000 (user facing) api requests per second during high load, with almost a million concurrent users. It's 99% rails. We (me and a second guy) have ran this system on ~10 (cheap) servers, five of which run the actual rails app. The rails app has probably been the easiest component to scale for us. We obviously do some caching - but it's not like our database could live without that caching anyways. And even though we have been an ad-financed bootstrapped company the hosting/hw costs has been very manageable. There are probably many valid reasons to chose something else than rails, but I wanted to share my experience w.r.t. making it work for our non-SAS needs.
- zer00eyz 10y ago
  I love stories like this, as they can be Illuminating, and I'm curious for more answers. 1. profitable? Is it your day job or Side job or a "lifestyle business", Pays for my beer... 2. I would love a number next to cheap ($5? $20) 3. Where are you located, and is that the market your serving. Because I live around Silicon Valley, my perception of what your saying might be really different from what it actually is... is cheep $20 a month, or is it $5?
  - zpe 10y ago
    1. Employing twenty people and making a profit. 2. Per app server we paid less than the cost of a macbook pro. Between 0.001 and 0.0015 USD in hardware costs per thousand ad views, which makes it irrelevant to the company bottom line. 3. Europe, global-ish market.