why is Ruby on Rails so darn slow.. - Linux

This is a discussion on why is Ruby on Rails so darn slow.. - Linux ; "Let's face the facts: Ruby is too slow," "When you start to run Rails, you get wildly non-linear performance. Rails has worked well on Ruby 1.8.6... everything else is a work in progress. It's weird and it's hard to understand," ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: why is Ruby on Rails so darn slow..

  1. why is Ruby on Rails so darn slow..

    "Let's face the facts: Ruby is too slow,"

    "When you start to run Rails, you get wildly non-linear performance.
    Rails has worked well on Ruby 1.8.6... everything else is a work in
    progress. It's weird and it's hard to understand,"

    "Ruby is richly festooned with core libraries and APIs that aren't
    built in Ruby, they are built in C,"

    http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/0...ay_ruby_rails/

  2. Re: why is Ruby on Rails so darn slow..


    Doug Mentohl writes:

    > "Let's face the facts: Ruby is too slow,"
    >
    > "When you start to run Rails, you get wildly non-linear performance.
    > Rails has worked well on Ruby 1.8.6... everything else is a work in
    > progress. It's weird and it's hard to understand,"
    >
    > "Ruby is richly festooned with core libraries and APIs that aren't
    > built in Ruby, they are built in C,"
    >
    > http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/0...ay_ruby_rails/


    And this has what to do with Linux advocacy?

    --
    "Yes, I am a nymshifting troll. I used to be called Rafael, but since the operation I prefer to be called Robin T Cox."
    High Plains Shifter, COLA.

  3. Re: why is Ruby on Rails so darn slow..

    * Doug Mentohl peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > "Let's face the facts: Ruby is too slow,"
    >
    > "When you start to run Rails, you get wildly non-linear performance.
    > Rails has worked well on Ruby 1.8.6... everything else is a work in
    > progress. It's weird and it's hard to understand,"
    >
    > "Ruby is richly festooned with core libraries and APIs that aren't
    > built in Ruby, they are built in C,"
    >
    > http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/0...ay_ruby_rails/


    Tim Bray has one of the chapters in the book "Beautiful Code", and in it
    he talks about Ruby, and some of its slowness.

    Anyway, from the first comment:

    Great prediction there, hotshot
    By breakfast
    Posted Monday 21st April 2008 11:29 GMT

    His prediction that other frameworks will become more Rails-like is
    accurate, but about two years late- most languages now have at least
    one railsalike web platform by this point. In fact the real problem
    is typically choosing one that is likely to have a decent shelf-life
    rather than not being able to find one at all.

    And:

    Several of my clients who tried Ruby-on-Rails then abandoned it
    because of speed and scalabilty. Despite it's other attractions - a
    big high-traffic website needs something more scalable.

    --
    We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and
    underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten. Don't let yourself
    be lulled into inaction.
    -- Bill Gates

  4. Re: why is Ruby on Rails so darn slow..

    On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:30:46 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Doug Mentohl writes:
    >
    >> "Let's face the facts: Ruby is too slow,"
    >>
    >> "When you start to run Rails, you get wildly non-linear performance.
    >> Rails has worked well on Ruby 1.8.6... everything else is a work in
    >> progress. It's weird and it's hard to understand,"
    >>
    >> "Ruby is richly festooned with core libraries and APIs that aren't
    >> built in Ruby, they are built in C,"
    >>
    >> http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/0...ay_ruby_rails/

    >
    > And this has what to do with Linux advocacy?


    I think Duh!g believes that Ruby is a Microsoft technology, and so he's
    climbing on board to criticize it through quotes, forgetting of course that
    most people using Ruby are either Mac or Linux users.

  5. Re: fuddies aphasia demonstrated ..

    on 21/04/08 18:16 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > I think Duh!g believes that Ruby is a Microsoft technology


    01. Hearing other peoples imaginary thoughts.

    > and so he's climbing on board to


    02. A quotation from Tim Bray, gets translated into something I said.

    > criticize it through quotes


    03. See's any quotation as criticism of Microsoft.

    > forgetting of course that most people using Ruby are either Mac or Linux users.


    04. Talks utter **** ...

  6. Re: fuddies aphasia demonstrated ..

    On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:06:23 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > on 21/04/08 18:16 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> I think Duh!g believes that Ruby is a Microsoft technology

    >
    > 01. Hearing other peoples imaginary thoughts.


    01. Pretending people say things they didn't.

    I said nothing about "hearing your thoughts". I expressed my opinion, as
    the words "i think" demonstrate.

    >> and so he's climbing on board to

    >
    > 02. A quotation from Tim Bray, gets translated into something I said.


    02. Pretending people say things they didn't.

    I did not claim anyones quote was something you said. I said that you are
    'criticizing' through quotes.

    >> criticize it through quotes

    >
    > 03. See's any quotation as criticism of Microsoft.


    03. Makes up things that don't even make sense in the context.

    I merely offerend the only explanation that seemed feasible to me. The
    quotes you were making did not have any Linux context, and since you're so
    anti-Microsoft one can only assume they are meant to be anti-Microsoft.
    What other point do you have to post them?

    >> forgetting of course that most people using Ruby are either Mac or Linux users.

    >
    > 04. Talks utter **** ...


    04. Monkey see monkey do

  7. Re: why is Ruby on Rails so darn slow..

    In article
    ,
    Doug Mentohl wrote:

    > "Let's face the facts: Ruby is too slow,"
    >
    > "When you start to run Rails, you get wildly non-linear performance.
    > Rails has worked well on Ruby 1.8.6... everything else is a work in
    > progress. It's weird and it's hard to understand,"
    >
    > "Ruby is richly festooned with core libraries and APIs that aren't
    > built in Ruby, they are built in C,"
    >
    > http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2008/0...ay_ruby_rails/


    Twitter runs on Ruby on Rails, so it certainly can be made fast enough
    to handle some pretty significant traffic.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  8. Re: why is Ruby on Rails so darn slow..

    In article <0i2Pj.16402$3v1.10868@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
    Linonut wrote:
    > Anyway, from the first comment:
    >
    > Great prediction there, hotshot
    > By breakfast
    > Posted Monday 21st April 2008 11:29 GMT
    >
    > His prediction that other frameworks will become more Rails-like is
    > accurate, but about two years late- most languages now have at least
    > one railsalike web platform by this point. In fact the real problem
    > is typically choosing one that is likely to have a decent shelf-life
    > rather than not being able to find one at all.


    Catalyst for Perl, and Seashore for Smalltalk look interesting. They
    were covered in successive installments of the FLOSS Weekly podcast,
    which is hosted by Perl guru Randal Schwartz.

    Seashore was interesting enough that Schwartz was doing a major project
    in Smalltalk so he could use it.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  9. Re: have you finally gone completly bonkers ..

    on 21/04/08 19:19 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    "I think Duh!g believes", fuddie

    "I expressed my opinion, as the words "i think" demonstrate"

    "I said that you are 'criticizing' through quotes"

    "The quotes you were making did not have any Linux context, and since
    you're so anti-Microsoft one can only assume they are meant to be
    anti-Microsoft"

  10. Re: why is Ruby on Rails so darn slow..

    Tim Smith wrote:

    >Twitter runs on Ruby on Rails


    Isn't R on R one of those "amateur" OSS projects? Maybe Web
    develpment doesn't count as "serious" work.

    --
    "Its called extrapolation." - The "honest and intelligent" Hadron
    Quack, arguing that yttrx deserves a wikipedia entry, since Elvis
    Presley and The Beatles have entries.


+ Reply to Thread