5 ms·
An alternative way to look at it would be "you are only building the 20% of Rails you actually need." I've never been a fan of full-fledged frameworks and pref
by bojo 11y ago
An alternative way to look at it would be "you are only building the 20% of Rails you actually need."
I've never been a fan of full-fledged frameworks and prefer the more pragmatic method of only pulling in components that I need though.
- juliangregorian 11y agohttps://github.com/rails-api/rails-api#why-use-rails-for-json-apis https://github.com/rails-api/rails-api#why-use-rails-for-jso...
- bojo 11y agohttp://blog.iron.io/2013/03/how-we-went-from-30-servers-to-2-go.html http://blog.iron.io/2013/03/how-we-went-from-30-servers-to-2...
- tptacek 11y agoGoing from 30 servers to 2 sounds like something whose cost savings might add up to as much as 100 hours of developer time.
- juliangregorian 11y agoThat's cool. I bet they could reduce it to 0.15 servers by rewriting it in C. They probably would have drastically reduced the number of servers even if the rewrite was still in ruby, having much better understanding around the runtime requirements. Ruby also seems like a questionable choice in the first place for such a service. Perhaps a prototype. Nobody is pretending that MRI Ruby is the most performant runtime you can find, but that's just not an issue for 99% of web stacks.