3 ms·
> an extremely simple and performant [...] Simple, yes. The beauty of APIs in the Ruby world really opened my eyes. But performant is never really was. For ins
by cies 10y ago
> an extremely simple and performant [...]
Simple, yes. The beauty of APIs in the Ruby world really opened my eyes. But performant is never really was. For instance: at the time of Sinatra's first release Wicket (Java) already existed and was much more performant.
- romanovcode 10y agoJava is faster then Ruby. In other news - sky is blue. This is no surprise, I think the OP was stating that it is performant compared to RoR.
- cies 10y ago> Java is faster then Ruby. In other news - sky is blue. RoR is dog slow. In other news - sky is blue. This is no surprise. > I think the OP was stating that it is performant compared to RoR. I think Sinatra is "performant enough for most" at best.
- brunoc 10y agoYou are comparing a beautifully minimal web library (Sinatra) to an abominable horror from the very depths of hell (Wicket). It is at best an inappropriate comparison.
- cies 10y agoIf you read again you see I praise the Ruby community for its beautiful APIs. The comparison with Wicket was purely on performance. As that is something that Ruby will most likely never fully catch up with.
- cutler 10y agoBefore you bet on that one check out the advances in JRuby, TruffleRuby/Graal and SubstrateVM: http://nirvdrum.com/2017/02/15/truffleruby-on-the-substrate-vm.html http://nirvdrum.com/2017/02/15/truffleruby-on-the-substrate-...