nkraft11

Sort of. In this case the lack of multithreading led engineers to using sidekiq as a stand in.

You're totally correct. It's not a problem of ruby per se, but engineers would basically just throw their hands up and say "ruby can't handle this" and sidekiq became the One True Way™. What ensued was the most byzantine software architecture I've ever seen.

Error handling was a huge issue, along with other weird distributed system bugs. Backed up queues, job shedding, thundering herds, you name it. When you have jobs on queues kicking off new jobs on different queues, tracing issues is just miserable. Sure, it's not a problem of ruby per se, but engineers would basically just throw their hands up and say "ruby can't handle this" and sidekiq became the One True Way™.

I briefly worked at a YC company that was a ruby shop. Their answer to every performance problem was to stick it on a queue. There were, I don’t know, dozens of them. Then they decided they needed to be multi-region, because reasons. But the queues weren’t set up to be multi-region, so they built an entirely new service that’s job was to decide which queue in which region jobs needed to go on. So now you had jobs crisscrossing datacenters and tracking any issue became literally impossible. Massively turned me off to both that company and ruby in general.

I can say that going from a place that had all of that observability tooling set up to one that was at the "ssh'ing into a box and greping a log" stage, you best believe I missed company A immensely. Even knowing which box to ssh into, which log file to grep, and which magic words to search far was nigh impossible if you weren't the dev that set up the machine and wrote the bug in the first place.