this is incomplete and then bullshit, it's comparing a single-core with a multicore running a single-threaded process.
Is Ruby Fast Yet?
91–95 of 95 posts
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
No can do. It got downvoted and HN does not allow me to edit negative karma posts. So please upvote my previous post so I can fix the layout of these comments :-) I'm assuming the negative votes are due to the formatting and not the message. I hope you, dear reader, don't miss the irony of this situation... If it's downvotes because of the message, well I feel bad for the downvoters and wish them much luck with using…
You missed the edit window. If you don't come back and edit your post within one hour, it's locked. Negative karma has nothing to do with it. That's the risk of fire-and-forget posting.
Or it's the risk of failing to account for human behavior...
It's not exactly a moral imperative to obsess over your HN comments, IMO.
Most likely, it's a simple bug, that seems to be fixed now :-) No ethics involved. Nothing to see here.
Btw, in the OP, I was trying to express the effect that the increased startup time affects flow and iteration. It's a similar effect to a comment breaking the layout of the page.
I just learned something new today :-)
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#93There is one sentence missing from each graph that would've made this a lot easier to grok: "x is better" where x is more requests, faster startup time, or less memory usage. I prefer graphs that lead me to what I should expect and that sentence would go a long way to eliminate the "mental math" I had to do to understand each one. On another note, the 2 year graphs are particularly interesting. They're more consisten…
The variance is sometimes due to RVM troubles. The benchmark is partly a test of the entire Ruby ecosystem. If RVM is bugging, then people are installing sub-optimal implementations. For example: https://github.com/wayneeseguin/rvm/issues/1418
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#94If 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…
Comparing across languages was originally part of the long-term goal. However, I haven't yet come across any good, multi-language, real-world benchmark.
Re: Is Ruby Fast Yet?
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
The negativity comes from the fact that this benchmark is useless and, at worst, misleading. True benchmarks are hard to get right. Running a bunch of stuff on a laptop isn't sufficient evidence of anything. Kudos to making the benchmark opensource at least, but even from a quick peak, I wouldn't trust this at all. As others have mentioned, JRuby shouldn't be this slow. Odds are the benchmark is throwing away the JIT…
While I'm sure it's not the aim of this site, there is some small value in knowing what sort of performance you get with a naive, untweaked deployment.
Website author here. On the contrary, you have nailed it. Noob-friendlyness is a valuable part of a language ecosystem.