3 ms·

Wow I'm sorry, but that was a pretty bad article, it seemed like the author knew little about the subject? First of all, it said rails doesn't scale. This is s

by ashleyw 18y ago

Wow I'm sorry, but that was a pretty bad article, it seemed like the author knew little about the subject? First of all, it said rails doesn't scale. This is so inaccurate on so many levels. Mainly because everything scales. Obviously for some situations languages like C will deal tons better - like google search. And some languages will be able to support more connections per server (again, C and even Ruby without the rails framework on top). But at the end of the day - Ruby on Rails will scale like any other language/framework, just sort out the database side to shard/slave and your away. Oh and it compared Ruby on Rails to the Google App Engine. Two totally different things. Just doesn't seem like a well thought out article to me?

gcv 18y ago
Early on, the author says: "If you write an application with Rails, you probably have to write a whole bunch of new code, or at least change around all of your old code, in order to get it to run on multiple computers." This is absolutely true. Rails "scales" by forcing programmers to do a whole lot of extra work (yes, sharding and secondary databases and lots of other things) which isn't particularly natural in the framework. As a programmer, I'm not particularly thrilled to have to set up and maintain a memcached cluster and then write code to make sure my object reads pass through the caching layer. It's more work. It's more fragile. It probably forced me to revisit and modify working code. The author wants to build a framework where scalable code is the default and natural way to write applications. Seems pretty well-thought out. He touches on many of the common pain points.
wmf 18y ago
I think half the people who say "rails doesn't scale" are idiots and the rest are making fun of the first half for trying to reduce the issue to such a glib statement.

by ashleyw 18y ago

gcv 18y ago

Early on, the author says: "If you write an application with Rails, you probably have to write a whole bunch of new code, or at least change around all of your old code, in order to get it to run on multiple computers." This is absolutely true. Rails "scales" by forcing programmers to do a whole lot of extra work (yes, sharding and secondary databases and lots of other things) which isn't particularly natural in the framework. As a programmer, I'm not particularly thrilled to have to set up and maintain a memcached cluster and then write code to make sure my object reads pass through the caching layer. It's more work. It's more fragile. It probably forced me to revisit and modify working code. The author wants to build a framework where scalable code is the default and natural way to write applications. Seems pretty well-thought out. He touches on many of the common pain points.

wmf 18y ago

I think half the people who say "rails doesn't scale" are idiots and the rest are making fun of the first half for trying to reduce the issue to such a glib statement.