I am discounting Rails here: I think Rails is great for what it is and I’ve had nothing but good experiences with it precisely because it is so “opinionated”. Its a very productive environment and manages to successfully avoid the runtime problems that I’ve personally hit in the past.
So... are you trying to make a point about Ruby or about Rails? Dare I give out the clichéd "Rails != Ruby" response here?
No, that mistake typically is a result of somebody faulting Ruby for Rails' problems. As the parent to my comment said,
Rails: Here's a kick-ass hammer, a kick-ass saw, a kick-ass measure tape, etc...
My point is that those kick-ass tools may be made of balsa. The editorial that I linked immediately came to mind because it too used tools as an analogy.
I'm starting to see why a lot of people say all software development analogies suck. What does it mean to say its tools would break under duress, or they're made of balsa wood? You can interpret those analogies any way you want.
The bottom line is the Ruby runtime has some serious flaws, but they are not so pervasive as to make everything in Ruby total crap. There's a good chance you could write an application in half the time it would take in Java and experience no problems ever. It's also possible you'll hit a memory leak and have to face an ugly workaround, partial rewrite or even scrap the whole Ruby project. Finally, you may have a memory leak and find an easy workaround, and then one day the problem is magically solved by Rubinius.
Those are concrete scenarios to consider. I don't see how a physical materials analogy has any value in analyzing your options. The pros and cons of languages don't align AT ALL with physical properties. Thoughts like, "Java is more like cast iron, and Python is more like hardwood" is just one-dimensional mental masturbation. In the end the reason to choose a language like Java because you are willing to tolerate more overhead for less risk.
Not "is a," but rather, "may be." This is because I never personally experienced the problems noted in the link I posted, but they are coming from what appears to be a credible source. You mistook a suggestion of problems for a personal conviction.
I am discounting Rails here: I think Rails is great for what it is and I’ve had nothing but good experiences with it precisely because it is so “opinionated”. Its a very productive environment and manages to successfully avoid the runtime problems that I’ve personally hit in the past.
So... are you trying to make a point about Ruby or about Rails? Dare I give out the clichéd "Rails != Ruby" response here?