Maybe start moving away from Ruby on Rails. Good web stacks in Golang and Rust do exist and at that scale they're likely the only sensible choices.
How far must the sunk cost fallacy go before something is done?
How far must the sunk cost fallacy go before something is done?
Meaning that at one point extra programmer difficulty is worth it if your everyday web stack can't keep up.
My point is that if the stack regularly falls over then the programmer convenience has to be sacrificed in favor of stable and mega-fast alternative that requires more programmer energy.
I love working with dynamic languages. I can prototype almost anything that I want to do, in hours. But I also recognized the need for a hardcore stack for a previous contract and went the long and painful route with Rust.
Result: the project is running for 7 months now, has only been restarted 4 times for updating it (re-deployment), never crashed once, handles 5000+ network connections and streams data from them 24/7.
Peak CPU usage on a 4-core VPS: 27%.
Peak memory usage: 180MB. Normal average memory usage: 80MB.
Right tool for the job.
Obviously I can't know for sure but it's not an uninformed assumption.
If you do this, you will realize that none are close to what you describe.
Also have you considered that if you had weekly outage when billion dollars companies continued to stick with Rails, maybe you were the problem?
And even if zero of their incidents alluded to performance problems with Rails I still worked a lot with it and I know for a fact that it's a factor.
Your snark doesn't change reality but you are free to pretend otherwise, fine with me.
> Also have you considered that if you had weekly outage when billion dollars companies continued to stick with Rails, maybe you were the problem?
Indeed, a programmer not having executive powers to influence change of deployment tech and server (was Puma at the time) is indeed me being a problem, surely. Especially after he made a study demonstrating the problems and calculated how much programmer time is wasted on these matters every week and he still got ignored. Perhaps I am the problem indeed!
I bet you I could cause this bug on a Rust product if you let me near the code ;)
In practice however, I found people working with certain languages and stacks to be more thorough. Still largely depends on the person in the important position though, that much is always true.
That's a capacity problem caused by a logic bug. Nothing stack specific. If you throw more work at a system than it is designed to handle, you'll hit a bottleneck.
> Your snark doesn't change reality
What reality? You are just barking your uneducated opinion. No one who ever worked on a service anywhere close to the scale of GitHub (regardless of the stack) would make such statements.
Though I'd personally do it in Elixir but again, speed. GitHub is huge and should rise up to the challenge.
I've seen good and productive Rails teams but they had to deliberately stop themselves from certain practices, otherwise they ran into problems. Long topic though, and people get very emotional and preachy defending Rails so it's a fruitless discussion 99.9% of the time.
In the end use what you feel works best for you and your team. Objective differences in programmer productivity, machine speed, iteration speed and other metrics does exist though and it's very tiring to see people constantly pretend otherwise.