Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter's issue was more with concurrent IO than anything. This problem was solved about 10 years ago with the release of Ruby 1.9 and since then only one Ruby process per core is required, just like NodeJS. In that time most CPU intensive parts of the web stack have also been re-written as native extensions. Recent benchmarks of a properly setup Ruby environment vs Go/Gin are showing Ruby/Sinatra as having 50% of th…
Contrived benchmarks are not useful. Specially when you have tiny datasets. If you want to do anything interesting, Python/Ruby are slow as hell, which is why you cannot do anything interesting in them. For example, while in Go, you can load say 1000 rows from the db and perform some data manipulation on it in the code to get a desired result, you cannot do this in Python because it will very very slow. So what you d…
Is Python/Django performance significantly worse than Ruby/Rails? The situations you describe are things I do every day in Ruby. Getting 1000 rows from the DB and performing some operation only takes a couple of milliseconds in Ruby.
Ruby/Python are meant to be glue, and you can most certainly use them to glue together "interesting things", like image processing or audio processing in a web layer.
Memory caching rarely changed, often accessed, but ultimately persisted in a DB things like exchange rates in a global object is exactly what you do in Rails. There's a specific helper for doing it. http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveSupport/Cache/Memor...