4 ms·

Thanks for this, it's a pretty useful comparison chart. I don't know why the Rails community gets their panties in a bunch every time someone brings up the poo

Thanks for this, it's a pretty useful comparison chart. I don't know why the Rails community gets their panties in a bunch every time someone brings up the poor performance of rails. It is a a slow bloated framework that requires you throw hardware at your scaling problem instead of writing decent code. In the end, there is only so much hardware you can buy before your app stops scaling and you need a complete rewrite, the way Twitter did.

matthewmacleod 13y ago
Let's shut that trope down right now. Ruby is slow, and Rails is slow, although they are both much better than it used to be. But this isn't bloat. Rails is a large framework that provides moderately sensible defaults. The tradeoff of that is there's a lot of stuff in there which might not be used by every app. This, and the overall flexibility of the framework, can cause performance to suffer, and combined with Ruby's relatively lacklustre performance, that can cause big scaling problems. Twitter is a poor example though, given the somewhat unique problem space it's tackling. But - building a standard e-commerce or service site? No problem. Getting bigger? Add some hardware. Still not enough? Start customising the framework. Because it's a toolset, not a one-size-fits-all solution. And if you've got outsize scaling requirements, you are going to have to get your hands dirty.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  The difference between 3.2-stable and master is +14k/-19k: https://github.com/rails/rails/compare/master...3-2-stable https://github.com/rails/rails/compare/master...3-2-stable The difference between 3.2.13 and 4.0.0 was +121k/-103k https://github.com/rails/rails/compare/v3.2.12...v4.0.0 https://github.com/rails/rails/compare/v3.2.12...v4.0.0 So yes, it has grown, but only a little, and may even be a bit smaller, depending on how you compare.

matthewmacleod 13y ago

Let's shut that trope down right now. Ruby is slow, and Rails is slow, although they are both much better than it used to be. But this isn't bloat. Rails is a large framework that provides moderately sensible defaults. The tradeoff of that is there's a lot of stuff in there which might not be used by every app. This, and the overall flexibility of the framework, can cause performance to suffer, and combined with Ruby's relatively lacklustre performance, that can cause big scaling problems. Twitter is a poor example though, given the somewhat unique problem space it's tackling. But - building a standard e-commerce or service site? No problem. Getting bigger? Add some hardware. Still not enough? Start customising the framework. Because it's a toolset, not a one-size-fits-all solution. And if you've got outsize scaling requirements, you are going to have to get your hands dirty.

steveklabnik 13y ago
The difference between 3.2-stable and master is +14k/-19k: https://github.com/rails/rails/compare/master...3-2-stable https://github.com/rails/rails/compare/master...3-2-stable The difference between 3.2.13 and 4.0.0 was +121k/-103k https://github.com/rails/rails/compare/v3.2.12...v4.0.0 https://github.com/rails/rails/compare/v3.2.12...v4.0.0 So yes, it has grown, but only a little, and may even be a bit smaller, depending on how you compare.