> Ruby, with its runtime, is complex and hard to build and deploy and host. Heroku et al take that away from you, but "getting it running on your laptop" alone

> Ruby, with its runtime, is complex and hard to build and deploy and host. Heroku et al take that away from you, but "getting it running on your laptop" alone is a sysyphian task. Is it? And compared to what? I don't think it's hard at all: - You can install Ruby from a system manager (super convenient) or with tools like ruby-install+chruby and ruby-build+rbenv. So that's one command or a handful of well documented commands you copy&paste. (You can use CentOS/RHEL modular packages or Fullstaq Ruby packages for your server to skip the long compilation step.) - Once you have Ruby, you should install -devel packages for libraries you use (this is same for all dynamic languages that need the C header file for compiling the extension). (This depends on the application.) - You make Bundler to install your gems by running "bundle install". If you installed your header files, this step shouldn't stop you. - You run the Puma app server by "bin/rails s" (in development) or "bundle exec --keep-file-descriptors puma -C config/puma.rb" (in production) while making sure the RAILS_ENV is set properly. (Puma has a lot of different configurations, but you can do defaults.) Now you are up and running, and should wrap the above as a systemd service or within a Docker container on production servers. I don't see how this is so much more difficult than other stacks? Python is slightly less convenient I think. In the Rails demo I made for Deployment from Scratch the Ruby bits are not very long, nor hard.