> True. It's, if anything, worse: Ruby extensions in C (or any other language) are mostly - 100% of the time for non-trivial stuff - a thin layer wrapping a na

> True. It's, if anything, worse: Ruby extensions in C (or any other language) are mostly - 100% of the time for non-trivial stuff - a thin layer wrapping a native library. The attack surface is minimal and it's almost entirely in the realm of the library code, which usually the extension developer has no control over. it is also much easier to sandbox a ruby process in a server than Chrome on the user's computer. > the engineering review and tooling that a Google has in place either hardly, I would argue that something that is hundreds of thousand times smaller in scope and number of lines of code is much easier to write, review, test and debug. Chrome seats at 7 million LoC, the average Ruby extension is ~100 LoC. The fact that writing a wrapper is trivial compared to writing a browser, also helps a lot. Many people can write a bug free correct wrapper in any language using only their brain. No one can write Google Chrome on their own, let alone a bug free correct implementation of it. Premature optimization is the root of all evil. “Omnia venenum sunt: nec sine veneno quicquam existit. Dosis sola facit, ut venenum non fit.”