Yes, if we're talking about development time! :P
Is Ruby Fast Yet?
71–80 of 95 posts
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#72JRuby question -- Why is it that much slower? I'd have thought that part of the point was to take advantage of the JVM's built in optimization.
My question as well. Every perf benchmark I've seen of jruby over the years, it's much faster than MRI (given time to boot & JIT anyway). I think this guy's numbers are very suspect.
I've benchmarked MRI vs jruby a number of times over the years on real apps and MRI usually cones out faster on average with worse numbers at 95th and 98th percentiles due to GC performance.
I never took the time to figure out why it is faster, but I assume that it is due to C libraries being faster for json serialization and my apps doing primarily json serialization after fetching from the database.
Edit: I should test the performance of the json libs, which would be easy to do
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#73We can at least see MRI has gotten faster with each new version, but we knew that already.
Also, I'm a bit surprised that this doesn't include more implementations of Ruby. Where's Rubinius? IronRuby? REE? I hope the list gets updated.
Furthermore, the benchmark itself could be better; I won't say I am disappointed, but I am not too thrilled either.
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#74If you're going to call it "Is Ruby Fast Yet", you should really be comparing Ruby implementations to implementations of other programming languages. Asked this way, I believe the answer to the question is a definite "no". As a small example, I benchmarked a real Scala web app running on worse hardware (a 1GB Linux VM) at over 650 requests/s. There was no degradation in load at this rate of requests, but it was 10x t…
Well there is a JRuby and Rubinius comparison. Those are different implementations of the the interpreter. Ruby will never be faster than C, but this site is aiming to show the improvements over time.
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#75Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#765s startup time for a web framework seems rather high. I wonder how well it compares to similar frameworks in other languages (Django? ASP.NET MVC?)
It does not compare well to other frameworks in Ruby either.
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#77Wouldn't it make more sense to test various features of Ruby for comparison rather than comparing an entire web framework? Given that, the URL should be israilsfastyet.com, or more appropriately howdoesrailsbehaveonvariousrubyversions.com
Agreed. This is much more of a test of the rails framework then ruby
Not really since it does not compare it to another other benchmarks. This is a test of how the performance of MRI ruby has changed over time.
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#78I've been hacking on a little scripting language of my own lately[1]. To get a handle on its perf, I have a few small benchmarks[2] I run that compare it against Lua (5.1.5), Python (2.7.5), and Ruby (2.0.0p247). (All of those and my language are bytecode-compiled, dynamically typed languages, hence that comparison.)
I happen to have Ruby 2.0 installed, and I was surprised to see it handily beat the other languages. I had expected Ruby to be the slowest of the pack, but they've apparently made big strides in 2.0.
On the off chance that anyone is curious, here's the results of running them on my machine:
binary_trees - wren 3531 0.28s
binary_trees - lua 1366 0.73s 258.40%
binary_trees - python 1420 0.70s 248.64%
binary_trees - ruby 3170 0.32s 111.39%
fib - wren 2688 0.37s
fib - lua 2998 0.33s 89.65%
fib - python 1390 0.72s 193.38%
fib - ruby 3645 0.27s 73.74%
for - wren 9092 0.11s
for - lua 9387 0.11s 96.86%
for - python 3171 0.32s 286.74%
for - ruby 8319 0.12s 109.30%
method_call - wren 4703 0.21s
method_call - lua 1780 0.56s 264.20%
method_call - python 806 1.24s 583.33%
method_call - ruby 3408 0.29s 138.02%
[1] https://github.com/munificent/wren [2] https://github.com/munificent/wren/tree/master/benchmark
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#79I've been hacking on a little scripting language of my own lately[1]. To get a handle on its perf, I have a few small benchmarks[2] I run that compare it against Lua (5.1.5), Python (2.7.5), and Ruby (2.0.0p247). (All of those and my language are bytecode-compiled, dynamically typed languages, hence that comparison.) I happen to have Ruby 2.0 installed, and I was surprised to see it handily beat the other languages.…
Oh, man, this reminds me of the pain of writing even the most trivial microbenchmarks in seven or eight languages. How about throwing in some of the fast scripting languages for healthy competition? E.g. JavaScript, LuaJIT and Julia. Feel free to borrow (MIT licensed, but I'm willing to relicense whatever I can):
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/tree/master/test/perf/mic...
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#80I've been hacking on a little scripting language of my own lately[1]. To get a handle on its perf, I have a few small benchmarks[2] I run that compare it against Lua (5.1.5), Python (2.7.5), and Ruby (2.0.0p247). (All of those and my language are bytecode-compiled, dynamically typed languages, hence that comparison.) I happen to have Ruby 2.0 installed, and I was surprised to see it handily beat the other languages.…
I know you were just going with what was already on your system most likely, but wouldn't it be a good idea to compare against a more up to date version of Python (version 3.3.x) and Lua (5.2.x)?
Lua 5.1 initial release was in 2006[1]
Python 2.7 initial release was in 2010[2]
Ruby 2.0 initial release was in 2013[3]
[1] http://www.lua.org/versions.html#5.1
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Python#Version_relea...
[3] https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/02/24/ruby-2-0-0-p0-i...