On Tue, 23 May 2006 22:04:10 +0200 Jonathan Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam wrote: > > On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:05:45 -0500 (CDT) "L. V. Lammert" <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> my personal favorite: > >> > >>> Rails is MVC, so the URL presented to the user HAS NOT page identifier > >> (i.e. only the controller name)! > > > > Uh, there's MVC frameworks in pretty much every language. Ruby is > > incredibly slow, and lacks internationalization support. > > > > Ruby is not incredibly slow, it depends on what you want to do with it. > There are many sites with millions of requests (43people, > basecamp,eins.de,..) that use Ruby/Ruby on Rails. Yes, it is incredibly slow. Here's some benchmarks showing python is significantly faster in everything but startup time. Even the author of ruby says ruby is slow, and its planned to make it a bytecode compiled language like everyone else in ruby 2. http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=python You can serve "millions of requests" with a cgi shell script too. Just because your pages are very simple, and/or can be cached, doesn't mean ruby is fast. For apps that are truely dynamic and cannot be cached, it is horribly slow. Some of my complex pages can't even manage 1 request per second in rails. The same thing gets 3 req/sec on django. Buying 3 times as many servers just because you picked a slow language with a bloated framework seems pretty dumb. > With Ruby on Rails you get an incredible increase in productivity. You can get the same (not really that incredible) increase in productivity using a faster language with a similar framework, like perl or python, or even java. It would be different if you were trading away execution speed to gain programming speed, but using rails is trading away execution speed for nothing. Adam
