Those large codebases are being rewritten in languages that support large dev teams and the tooling that static type systems can support.
Horizontal scaling isn't the reason and nor is it the bugaboo you make it out to be. Vertical scaling might get you a factor of 100 on modern hardware over dynamic languages, vertical with threading might get you to 1000x, massive parallelism afforded by the coming exponential jump in core counts is going to get folks to 10-50k increases in throughput.
> Those large codebases are being rewritten in languages that support large dev teams and the tooling that static type systems can support.
Of course that's one of the reasons, and that goes directly against the notion that python and ruby are somehow cheaper or more efficient to develop in.
> Horizontal scaling isn't the reason and nor is it the bugaboo you make it out to be.
The point is horizontal and vertical scaling don't automatically resolve the drawbacks of slow code. Using 10x the resources to make up for slow code is generally not a solution if performance actually matters.
> Vertical scaling might get you a factor of 100 on modern hardware over dynamic languages, vertical with threading might get you to 1000x, massive parallelism afforded by the coming exponential jump in core counts is going to get folks to 10-50k increases in throughput.
Not sure what you're trying to argue here. Yes 'dynamic' languages are slower, yes you can vertically and horizontally scale both. I don't see how that's relevant for a comparison of languages.
Horizontal scaling isn't the reason and nor is it the bugaboo you make it out to be. Vertical scaling might get you a factor of 100 on modern hardware over dynamic languages, vertical with threading might get you to 1000x, massive parallelism afforded by the coming exponential jump in core counts is going to get folks to 10-50k increases in throughput.