4 ms·
Maybe they can improve the awful performance. They keep denying it's due to their site being in Ruby, but I don't buy it. Rewrite it in Go already.
by devstevedev 8y ago
Maybe they can improve the awful performance. They keep denying it's due to their site being in Ruby, but I don't buy it.
Rewrite it in Go already.
- bovermyer 8y ago"Rewrite it in Go already." So you've done a complete analysis of how much effort that would take and the loss of reliability inherent in rewrites versus the potential gains at scale?
- YorickPeterse 8y agohttps://i.imgur.com/ah8jmdZ.png https://i.imgur.com/ah8jmdZ.png (backend request timings for the past 24 hours) indicates Ruby isn't as bad of a choice as you might think.
- merb 8y agoactually mean is at 128ms, which is not really good... besides mean is not what you should actually target.
- ahkurtz 8y agoIt's mostly due to them not paying developers enough and also having a cavalier attitude about engineering concerns. Their free product is a loss leader designed to sell you their B2B and it doesn't need to be great it just needs to be used. As with the rest of their philosophy the less they spend and can get away with the better for them. From their perspective.
- shdh 8y agoGolang: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-runner https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-runner
- jeltz 8y agoNo, it is not because of Ruby. It is either about not prioritizing performance in their development process or lacking the skills to write fast software. The Gitlab team would probably write a slow application in Go too.