Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ruby 3.2’s YJIT is Production-Ready

shopify.engineering

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 304 posts

Re: Ruby 3.2’s YJIT is Production-Ready

#111

Post by r-s »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #24
bastawhiz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big difference compared to HHVM is that this is part of Ruby. It's not a separate project. Shopify is sponsoring much of the effort, but it's owned by the community. At Stripe, there are millions of lines of Ruby. Lots of it would be better off in a different language—if it had been written in another language initially. Ruby is easy to hire for, there are tens of thousands of pages of documentation for the code…

> Switching is possible, but the cost to replace it is half a decade or more. I would imagine if you're going to switch millions of lines from one language to another - you wouldn't do it by hand - you'd write something transpile it? Has any company actually done something like this before - especially somewhat recently? I can't imagine anyone doing it by hand...

Many many years ago I was hired to convert a Fortran app to C. The first person to try it ran it through a software called "f2c". It worked fine - but the code was totally non human readable so it couldn't be extended later, so it provided almost no value in this case.

Re: Ruby 3.2’s YJIT is Production-Ready

#112

Post by jrochkind1 »

erikrothoff wrote: post #47
jrochkind1 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pretty sure (there isn't a lot of info on how to enable it in production workloads The YJIT is not on by default in ruby 3.2, you have to specifically enable it. If you aren't sure if you have enabled it... what makes you pretty sure you have enabled it? It seems possible you have not enabled it, if you aren't confident you know how to do so? I am not using it yet myself, and don't want to put any possibly inco…

Yes, I'm pretty sure because: 1. Compiled with jyjit confrmed (ruby --yjit) returns the correct value 2. RubyVM::YJIT.enabled? returned true I didn't notice any improvements at basically so I can't really say _for sure_ if it was working as intended.

RubyVM::YJIT.enabled? returning true does seem to settle it, and no need to say "pretty sure" with qualifications!

Re: Ruby 3.2’s YJIT is Production-Ready

#113

Post by mostlysimilar »

vidarh wrote: post #92
Thaxll wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue I have with Ruby / Python is the fact that it's duck typed, it makes the maintenance and refactor pretty hazardous. You get objects you don't know what's in there, 6 month later someone changed it, no compile error but it will break when you run it. And so to overcome those major issues they added really ugly stuff that is not core to the language, linters, annotations etc ...

I used to have that attitude. Then I wrote my first Ruby project as an experiment. That was 17 years ago, and the majority of the code I've written since has been Ruby. What clinched it was that the first Ruby project I wrote involved trying to reimplement a piece of C code we had. It ended up 10% the size with more functionality, and it took me a tiny fraction of the time to write. If you write code the way you writ…

I don't know if I'm just a bad programmer and everyone knows something I don't, but it seems to be the benefits of a strongly typed language are wildly overblown. It's a different way of thinking about building software and it saves you from a few mistakes you could otherwise make, but you'd think I was writing code with a hammer and chisel the way people on HN talk about languages like Ruby. It feels a lot like the people who used to try to convince everyone functional programming was the only way to go and object-oriented programming was for dinosaurs.

Re: Ruby 3.2’s YJIT is Production-Ready

#114

Post by theLiminator »

abvdasker wrote: post #91
revskill wrote: post #38

For anyone thinking Ruby is dying or slow, it's not the reason people like me used it and sticked with it in first place! It's about the experience when you write the code itself. It's natural, like a flow of water, and you're suddenly in Zen mode, where your thought just naturally flow without even you're aware or not. I first time learn Ruby from zero to "hero" in production confidently is in just under a week. And…

Ruby was probably my "first love" as a programming language for the reasons you described, but nowadays I prefer statically typed compiled languages. Ruby is still my preferred scripting language, though I've seen the way large projects can start to suffer from high maintenance overhead when it comes to dynamic languages like Ruby.

Definitely, it gets extremely frustrating when you have runtime bugs that would've been trivially caught by a compiler.

Re: Ruby 3.2’s YJIT is Production-Ready

#115

Post by jrochkind1 »

hardwaregeek wrote: post #31

It's been a sec since I've used Ruby. How's the typing story? Seems like Sorbet is doing quite well, but are there comprehensive typings for the ecosystem, like TypeScript? Because with ergonomic, comprehensive type checking and a JIT, Ruby might be a tempting option again.

No, I'm afraid I'd say Sorbet/RBS haven't really been catching on widely.

Re: Ruby 3.2’s YJIT is Production-Ready

#116

Post by bcrosby95 »

mostlysimilar wrote: post #113
vidarh wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to have that attitude. Then I wrote my first Ruby project as an experiment. That was 17 years ago, and the majority of the code I've written since has been Ruby. What clinched it was that the first Ruby project I wrote involved trying to reimplement a piece of C code we had. It ended up 10% the size with more functionality, and it took me a tiny fraction of the time to write. If you write code the way you writ…

I don't know if I'm just a bad programmer and everyone knows something I don't, but it seems to be the benefits of a strongly typed language are wildly overblown. It's a different way of thinking about building software and it saves you from a few mistakes you could otherwise make, but you'd think I was writing code with a hammer and chisel the way people on HN talk about languages like Ruby. It feels a lot like the…

Its all guts, feels, and "everybody knows" - but afaik there's been no hard proof about statically typed languages being superior to dynamically typed ones, or vice versa.

Re: Ruby 3.2’s YJIT is Production-Ready

#117

Post by FpUser »

JW_00000 wrote: post #77
pantulis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like strong typing came after Ruby. In fact, duck typing was a _feature_ of Ruby on its days. At the end of the day, you choose your battles, it's not a black-or-white decision.

No, but gradual/optional typing did come after Ruby. Back in 2005, you could choose between static typing with type checking but lots of verbosity (e.g. Java "Point point = new Point();" or C++ "for (std::map ::iterator it = myMap.begin(); it != myMap.end(); it++)") or dynamic typing without type checking but also without the verbosity. Since optional typing, dynamically typed languages got the guarantees of type che…

>"for (std::map::iterator it = myMap.begin(); it != myMap.end(); it++)")"

All you really needed is:

  for (auto it : myMap)
and you still get compile type safety

Re: Ruby 3.2’s YJIT is Production-Ready

#118

Post by jrochkind1 »

lakomen wrote: post #78

> Multiple large clusters of servers distributed across the world, capable of serving over 75 million requests per minute That doesn't say anything at all sadly. Ruby people seem to be sensitive when someone asks them about performance, my last question about that was downvoted heavily here. I don't know any Ruby, I know how much Go can handle with the stdlib, a single non-parameterized route, returning "hello world"…

> since we're talking semi real world scenarios

A single non-parameterized route returning "hello world" is a real-world scenario? You have an interesting business domain!

Re: Ruby 3.2’s YJIT is Production-Ready

#119

Post by [deleted] »

revskill wrote: post #38

For anyone thinking Ruby is dying or slow, it's not the reason people like me used it and sticked with it in first place! It's about the experience when you write the code itself. It's natural, like a flow of water, and you're suddenly in Zen mode, where your thought just naturally flow without even you're aware or not. I first time learn Ruby from zero to "hero" in production confidently is in just under a week. And…

[deleted]

Re: Ruby 3.2’s YJIT is Production-Ready

#120

Post by [deleted] »

asim wrote: post #2

It shows that Ruby still has life left in it yet. The language itself is wonderful, there's a great ecosystem of tooling but the performance was always lagging. Hopefully some of this makes it a choice for people once more over other more esoteric languages. My only concern here would be the time and sunk cost fallacy of someone like a Shopify working on a Ruby JIT. It reminds me of when Facebook was working on the H…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN