From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2007-10-03T18:40:02+09:00
Subject: Re: Recent Criticism about Ruby (Scalability, etc.)

On 23.09.2007 21:08, Phlip wrote:
> forrie wrote:
> 
>> I presume most people here read today's article on Slashdot which had
>> some critique about Ruby and scaling to a large architecture.
> 
> Nope.

Same here.

> I go with Dave Thomas's verbiage "Ruby stays out of your way". That says 
> it all - dynamic typing, clear simple statements, endless extensibility, 
> and realistic scaling, all in a nutshell.
> 
>> I remember a previous gig where we used Java heavily and the scaling
>> was pretty linear.  Need more space?  Add another blade and so on...
> 
> That's not scaling! (Okaaay, that's only one aspect of scaling!)

It definitively is.  One aspect of Ruby that hinders scaling is the 
absence of native threads IMHO.  On the other hand, mechanisms are 
provided for IPC (DRb for example) which are easy to use and thus may be 
counted as compensating at least partially for the lack of native threading.

> How did your Java design itself scale? The rate you add new features - 
> did it go up or down over time? _That's_ scaling. If the rate doesn't 
> slow down, you have time to tune your code to speed it up and handle 
> more users...

IMHO this is not scaling (well, at least not if you follow common usage) 
but extensibility or flexibility of the design which translates into 
developer efficiency.  Which does not say this is superfluous or the 
wrong measure, not at all.  I just don't think "scalability" is the 
wrong term here.

Kind regards

	robert