7 ms·
There are two ways to interpret this: OPTION A) Omg, I'm not going to use Rails, even Twitter is ditching it. OPTION B) Hmm.. They built something really fast u
by Tawheed 16y ago
There are two ways to interpret this: OPTION A) Omg, I'm not going to use Rails, even Twitter is ditching it. OPTION B) Hmm.. They built something really fast using Rails, got it out there, got massive popularity, made boatloads of $$ and now they're maturing and moving to a more robust infrastructure.
I go with Option B. If you're a new startup -- don't confuse this advice and start brewing your own Java-based server just because Twitter is doing this now.
- suking 16y agoBoatloads of $???
- RobertKohr 16y agoAKA: Investors giving them money for worthless pieces of paper.
- jarin 16y agoI think that's the way to look at it. You have to remember that Twitter is at a completely different level of traffic than your company will likely ever hit, even if it becomes hugely and wildly popular. It's like looking at Google's server farm and saying "I can't be successful unless I too have a server farm like Google's."
- bonch 16y agoThe implication of Option B is that Rails isn't robust. A lot of people are going to avoid Rails because of that.
- michaelcampbell 16y agoThat could very well be true in some abstract sense; but who among us honestly needs the robustness and/or scalability of Twitter, really?
- samstokes 16y agoThis article is not about Twitter ditching Rails, because Twitter is not ditching Rails. This seems worth repeating [1] because this is the top-voted comment, even though the submission title no longer implies that. Absolutely go with Rails [2], because it's a great way to get started quickly and large successful startups like Twitter are still using it at scale. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2424393 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2424393 [2] Or Django, or whatever
- jemond 16y agoTo clarify, Twitter hasn't and doesn't make boatloads of money.