On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Joshua Partogi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I often hear people say that rails is not scalable. What does it mean > by that exactly? > > Does it mean that: > 1. Rails can not be clustered? > 2. Rails can not handle many concurrent users? > 3. The code gets messy when the apps gets larger? > 4. The performance is not fast? > > I am still confused by these buzzword that I often hear in many > forums. So what are they actually referring when they say rails is not > scalable?
There are a few application domains where Rails isn't really appropriate, like chat servers where clients hold connections open over a long time. If you look at those systems, obviously something like Node.js is going to have a large advantage. and yes, Ruby is pretty slow as interpreters go, but if you're building a website that's going to get high load and you're not already thinking about caching, you're pretty much screwed anyway. In that use case, Rails is just a convenient way of populating the cache. mark -- A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent of a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like Heinlein or Dr. Who. -- Chris Maeda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
