Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ruby 3.3

ruby-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 277 posts

Re: Ruby 3.3

#161

Post by ajmurmann »

pdimitar wrote: post #129
ajmurmann wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of the time in a given request is even spent in Ruby code? The majority of web apps that were slow and I got a chance to analyze were spending much of the time in DB queries and slowness was usually due to unoptimized DB queries. Even endpoints that were fast, still spent a large percentage of their time not in Ruby but in DB and service requests

That is true, yes, but still comparing e.g. Rust vs. Ruby I'd think Rust spends anywhere from 10ns to 100ns (outside of waiting on DB) and Ruby no less than 10 ms. Still pretty significant and can add up during times of big load. Also I remember Rails' ActiveRecord having some pretty egregious performance footprint (we're talking 10ms to 100ms on top of DB waiting) but I hear that was fixed a while ago.

My point was that if we look at Rails performance going up 10%, what does that mean for time spent in Ruby. I'd believe anything from a 15% to a 80% reduction of time spent in Ruby code

Re: Ruby 3.3

#162

Post by lp4vn »

gls2ro wrote: post #102
lp4vn wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked with ruby, ruby in rails(RoR) more specifically, a bit more than ten years ago(2011-2013). At that time it was already the afterglow of RoR, the framework for web development that had come to life in 2005 and raged between 2007 and 2009. The latest-technology-addicted crowd was jumping into the boat of node.js, that was crazy fast compared to anything done RoR, and API oriented development with angularjs. In…

Ruby and Ruby on Rails are not in a downward trend. There were maybe some year where the interest was decreased but in the last 2 years a lot of things happened: Ruby has a lot new features, Rails 7 is out and comes with a new approach to web apps like for example Horwire with the just released Turbo 8. And there is a lot more: new conferences, new books and new gems. (Shameless plug: I curate a newsletter called Sho…

>Maybe Ruby is not at the level where is was in 2007-2009 but it is also NOT in a downward trend.

It's not only that ruby and ruby on rails are trending down, this has been the case for at least 10 years.

https://berk.es/2022/03/08/the-waning-of-ruby-and-rails/

This is only an article, but you will find the same point of view in many other places. The decline of ruby and RoR is obvious for anyone doing web development. Python is only getting stronger, Typescript the same, not to mention the statically typed competitors like Java with Spring Boot.

I wouldn't doubt that even languages like Go and Rust might surpass ruby soon in web development because as general purpose languages they are already more relevant.

I'm a former RoR developer and I took off the keywords ruby and ruby on rails from my curriculum because for me professionally it makes no sense to invest time in them.

Re: Ruby 3.3

#163

Post by ckolkey »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #56
f6v wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people running sidekiq with their Ruby app on production don’t care about cross-language queue. If you pay for Pro or Enterprise you don’t want any major changes that are potentially breaking.

The only reason we pay is because the pro version doesn't lose jobs if a worker crashes. You would think that would be a core feature.

Sounds like Mike found a good feature that would encourage companies to purchase a license. I have a tremendous admiration for the business he's built.

Re: Ruby 3.3

#164

Post by e12e »

nerdponx wrote: post #82
burlesona wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ruby is basically a less popular but more elegant Python. It’s a solid general purpose language, but especially good at shell scripting, data munging, etc. If you’re fluent in Node and Python it should be quite easy to learn. The downside is it’s not going to do anything fundamentally new for you coming from those languages. The upside is mostly aesthetic, Ruby offers and encourages really beautiful ways of expressin…

Having tried to use Ruby for text processing specifically, I'm not sure I agree it beats Python at that particular task. Maybe I'm just used to the Python way of doing things, but I found it difficult to work with the lack of first-class functions and iterators/generators, as well as the general iteration protocol.

> ... lack of first-class functions and iterators/generators, as well as the general iteration protocol.

I'd love to hear what makes you say this - none of it is meaningfully true (ruby doesn't have functions, but it has blocks and callables).

It has:

https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/Enumerator.html

Re: Ruby 3.3

#165

Post by seabrookmx »

ochoseis wrote: post #160
seabrookmx wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always this rift between the "language is slow" crowd and the "but it's not the bottleneck" crowd. I think this comes from the types of applications you work on and their scale. I work at what a company that's not particularly large. Our original API is a Django monolith that serves about 1000req/s. While you could argue Python isn't the bottleneck, Django often is. I hear the same feedback from colleagues th…

Further, with a lot of the batteries-included web frameworks you end up with a ton of suboptimal database queries (e.g. unintentional query-in-loop). Some would argue that you can just profile your code and optimize the hot spots, but I would tend to think it still slows you down quite a bit overall.

So common that apps like sentry have special logic to detect these "N+1" queries. We find DRF is awful for this.

Re: Ruby 3.3

#166

Post by pmdr »

lp4vn wrote: post #66
999900000999 wrote: post #57

Worth it to learn Ruby if you already know Python and NodeJS ? I find Ruby fascinating yet difficult.

I worked with ruby, ruby in rails(RoR) more specifically, a bit more than ten years ago(2011-2013). At that time it was already the afterglow of RoR, the framework for web development that had come to life in 2005 and raged between 2007 and 2009. The latest-technology-addicted crowd was jumping into the boat of node.js, that was crazy fast compared to anything done RoR, and API oriented development with angularjs. In…

> now that RoR is in a downward trend

It's really sad if that's the case. What's replacing it (mostly JS/TS everywhere, relying on PaaS) really isn't as fun.

Re: Ruby 3.3

#167

Post by serial_dev »

wolfgang42 wrote: post #96
kyledrake wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if a slight performance increase is going to sell anyone on ruby but I'm glad they're making incremental improvements on things. Being overly concerned about performance is almost always premature optimization, and ruby is more than fast enough for everything I've ever asked of it (including the binding glue between our redis DNS record storage and PowerDNS, where the entire stack serves half a billion q…

> half a billion queries a month across 14 tiny VPSes For reference: $ units -1v '1|2 billion reqs/month / 14 servers' 'req/sec/server' 1|2 billion reqs/month / 14 servers = 13.580899 req/sec/server I always do this when I see large-sounding query counts; a month has a lot of seconds in it, and it’s easier to visualize only one at a time: I can imagine hooking a speaker up to the server and getting a 14Hz buzz, or do…

TIL there is units command line tool.

Re: Ruby 3.3

#168

Post by pmontra »

cdcarter wrote: post #153
riffraff wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with Django's orm? Does it have something particularly bad compared to others?

I think the poster is specifically referring to using inheritance in Django ORM, where if you had e.g. a model Book and then a model Novel that inherits from it. In python these are modeled as a class inheritance hierarchy, and Django (at least, by default) creates a database table per class in the hierarchy. If you have 3-4 levels of inheritance, that's 3-4 extra joins per query.

This. That customer of mine started a project a few years before hiring me. They used inheritance and each model is scattered around a number of tables. No external tool can sensibly access that database, except that very Django app and its manage.py commands. Add a similarly enthusiastic use of apps under the same main directory and the database is a mess of long named tables with a tangle of relationships between them.

We started another project later on and we planned the database first. We wrote one model per table, no inheritance, only a few cleanly delimited apps. We still use makemigrations and migrate but if we want we can write a piece of software on any language to access that database.

Re: Ruby 3.3

#169

Post by djur »

e12e wrote: post #164
nerdponx wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having tried to use Ruby for text processing specifically, I'm not sure I agree it beats Python at that particular task. Maybe I'm just used to the Python way of doing things, but I found it difficult to work with the lack of first-class functions and iterators/generators, as well as the general iteration protocol.

> ... lack of first-class functions and iterators/generators, as well as the general iteration protocol. I'd love to hear what makes you say this - none of it is meaningfully true (ruby doesn't have functions, but it has blocks and callables). It has: https://docs.ruby-lang.org/en/master/Enumerator.html

What is the distinction between a function and a proc? I would say that a proc is a (first-class) function.

Re: Ruby 3.3

#170

Post by ufmace »

999900000999 wrote: post #57

Worth it to learn Ruby if you already know Python and NodeJS ? I find Ruby fascinating yet difficult.

Depends on what you're looking to get from it.

The most interesting part IMO is how it's so similar to Python along many categories, but also so different.

Biggest example is how Ruby just loves Blocks. They're all over the place in the std lib, tons of syntax sugar for them, and countless DSLs built around them. All the standard functional stuff is there in the std lib and has been from very early on, so doing functional-style stuff is really smooth and reads well. In Python, you can technically do most of the same stuff, but it all seems a lot more awkward to write and to read (though maybe just my opinion from doing Ruby first). Python has lambdas, but it doesn't seem to like them much for more than trivial things. But instead functions are first-class everywhere.

Post reply on HN