I'm not sure how much of the 'doesn't scale' stigma was associated Ruth twitter but architecturally rails is optimised for "web-based business object lifecycle management" (most dynamically generated sites) rather than "real-time massively distributed message networks" (twitter) the latter of which benefits from mechanisms for super fast memory-based queuing systems. They're different problems; luckily many including me think rails does pretty well with the former.
On 25 Feb 2010 14:29, "ben wiseley" <[email protected]> wrote: I agree with Andy. About the only excuse not to use Rails these days is it's still kind of a pain in the ass to deploy (but it's gotten MUCH better with Passenger and is fairly idiot proof now). Rails also makes life somewhat difficult if you're not following the Rails way; like working with legacy databases or for some reason needing to massively violate the MVC pattern. But, even those things are possible. Some Rails add-ons (gems, libraries) can be difficult on Windows as well. Ideally you're developing on a Mac and deploying to Linux. But, again, a lot of people dev on Windows... I did the first year I was doing Rails. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Andy Jeffries <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've been j... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
