Golang only 2x ruby at net/http level and same as ruby at web framework level?

TechEmpower has it at about 3x Ruby at net&#x2F;http level, but close to 10x on BeeGo vs. Sinatra.<p><a href="https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r9&amp;hw=peak&amp;test=json" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techempower.com&#x2F;benchmarks&#x2F;#section=data-r9&amp;hw=p...</a><p>(Interestingly, JRuby is actually within about 10% of Go.)<p>This doesn&#x27;t surprise me all that much: the guts of Ruby&#x27;s HTTP parsing &amp; network handling is generally done in C. It&#x27;s only when you layer all the code in Rails through the default Ruby interpreter that it gets slow.

What does this &quot;hello world&quot; measure?<p>It doesn&#x27;t measure Ruby&#x27;s speed, that&#x27;s for sure. The IO is C, and the HTTP parsing and network operations are also C in Ruby.<p>Also the frameworks you used are minimal (for both Ruby and Go) so their overhead is negligible as well. Again you&#x27;re mostly measuring some C calls vs Go calls.<p>So, a more accurate title would be: &quot;Golang only 2x C at net&#x2F;http and same as C at web framework level&quot;.<p>Now, try a full blown Rails service or a Sinatra endpoind that DOES some processing, not just prints something, and compare it with the same thing in Go.

But in actual world, people will be attracted by post like &quot;Iron.io Blog: How We Went from 30 Servers to 2: Go&quot;. And like to think so we can use it do faster and easier !<p>Also, for start-ups, It&#x27;s important to choose a language that has a certain level of performance rather than rewrite all codes later.

Cross-language benchmarks are nonsense.<p>Hardware can be scaled. Time cannot. Use the platform that saves you the most time (now and when you&#x27;re in &quot;maintenance&quot; mode) and worry about performance later.