Phil Dobbin wrote: > On 02/04/2013 07:36 PM, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 2/4/2013 7:21 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >>> Does anyone know of a repository that's*trustworthy* (gotta worry >>> 'bout malware) with newer ruby rpm's than RHEL has? >>> >>> OT: the more I deal with ruby, the less I like it. Someone here was >>> ready to move to a newer version, and from the ruby.org website, they're >>> apparently actively hostile to all RH-related distros, even though >>> we're the most common in North America. They've got a how to do it from >>> debian and arch, how to use their own installer, and, oh, yes, they say a lot >>> of their community feels you should build from source. >>> >>> Sorry, that's not my idea of a stable language that I'd ever recommend >>> to someone.... >> >> IMNSHO, Ruby is only suitable for prototyping and low volume uses. it >> doesn't scale well, and ruby/rails websites perform abysmally under >> heavy workloads. <snip> > The doesn't scale well argument hasn't been the case for at least a few > years now. Twitter is just one example. Some of the busiest sites on teh > Interwebs are still using it. Um, according to wikipedia, twitter went to scala, and uses ror for the user interface. > > There are also projects, for example, like Puppet that are written in > Ruby that are used by a lot of fairly large organisations. > > It may be worth your while reappraising Ruby. I'm an admin these days, and don't get to argue this. However, when it's packageable, and pushed out that way, so that someone can update a ton of machines, and not hand-craft it, *AND* subreleases don't break working code, I'll reconsider my attitude. And as I think I said, I find the RoR website rather obnoxious in its refusal to pay any attention to the biggest market in North America, RH and RH-derived repos. mark