[LRUG] e-petitions site

[Mickael Riga]

No no I was not comparing to PHP or whatever. Not at all.
I really love Ruby otherwise I would not be part of this group.
And I believe it's a very handy language for building websites

My point was more that using a script language in general means that you have to be more careful with highly solicited portions of code.

Using pure Rack for one controller of the website was just an idea.

Also sometimes I think about using database specific features even if it's not portable to another database.
Or using some server specific methods instead of middleware for a couple of things even if it means you have to do the same job if you change server.
Like dealing with DOS attacks or IP filtering.

These are just ideas in the air. I never had to do a very high volume website, but if I had to, that is what I would investigate.
I did not talk about caching because I take it for granted when it is about high volume.
Now they are clues, not ways.

I personally do not use any framework at all.
Sometimes a small controller mixin of mine that is 64 lines of code.
That makes it faster than using RoR but also maybe less good if somebody else would have to maintain my code.
There is no truth or whatever.
I am just sharing my experience.

I don't understand the rant.
And I don't understand why mocking another language makes it more legitimate.
My sentence does not state something like "Ruby is slow".
Only comparison counts and it is a fact that Ruby is slowER than other languages (or at least we should talk about the interpreter, not the language).
And it is also a fact that RoR is slower than other frameworks.
It does not mean that you have to abandon something you like and you feel comfortable with.
When I say "harder", it doesn't mean you shouldn't use it.

Everybody knows that a shell script is slower than a compiled program and it does not make it useless.

Have a nice day.
Relax.
Mig


> 
> 
>> Anyway it will always be harder to build a high volume website in Ruby and especially in Ruby on Rails.
> 
> 
> [citation needed] :-)
> 
> I don't want to turn this into a "Ruby is slow" vs "No it isn't" flamewar, but I have yet to see any substantial evidence that it is impossible to build a high-traffic website in Rails. In fact, high-traffic Rails websites are clearly in evidence.
> 
> Many people still seem to have limited knowledge of caching and other web acceleration techniques, plus don't seem to understand that Rails' MVC architecture allows for easy/trivial expansion at the tiers which need the most help. Tier expansion can be painful in non-MVC architectures and I doubt most PHP programmers would know what you were talking about if you were to suggest it to them.
> 
> If asked to make a Rails site scale to say 4 million users/hour, I'd feel more confident it could be done - and more elegantly - than with a PHP site written without any framework, or an ASP.NET site.
> 
> There is no reason why a moderate server with a little bit of careful configuration shouldn't be able to handle 1000 requests/minute. I'm curious to know what happened. It might just be "one of those things".
> 
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org