From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-10-04T02:21:02+09:00
Subject: Re: Recent Criticism about Ruby (Scalability, etc.)

On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 06:40:02PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 23.09.2007 21:08, Phlip wrote:
> >
> >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.

Agreed.  This is a far more useful argument against Ruby's ability to
scale than benchmarks from some website.


> 
> >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.

It's scalability of code, but not of system load handling.  There are
different possible uses of the term "scale", and I think some of us are
running up against that discrepancy.  You're talking about the
scalability of an application, and Phlip is talking about the scalability
of the development project behind the app, from what I see.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
W. Somerset Maugham: "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for
wit."