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

Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting

txt.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting

#21

Post by gnufied »

byroot wrote: post #6
robin_reala wrote: post #5

rubinius 2.0.0.rc1 (1.8.7 release yyyy-mm-dd JI) [x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu] I’ve no idea how fast Rubinius is compared to MRI 1.9.3 or 2.0 but it’s not exactly the standard interpreter. I wonder why it was chosen?

Maybe to prove his point ? Because I tried with ruby 1.9.3p327 (2012-11-10 revision 37606) [x86_64-darwin11.4.2] and the result is more real 0m2.835s user 0m2.236s sys 0m0.449s (of course the computer and the system are different but still) This benchmark is totally stupid.

I was waiting like a kid at the candy bar, which version of Ruby the OP used and then Rubinius. WTF.

Wondering what happened to collective HN hivemind to upvote a post like this.

Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting

#22

Post by niggler »

conorh wrote: post #18

I know I'm feeding a troll with a title like that, but the results are very strange. On my macbook: $ ruby -v rubinius 2.0.0.rc1 (1.8.7 release yyyy-mm-dd JI) [x86_64-apple-darwin12.2.0] $ time ./runner.sh ruby bogobench.rb Running 'ruby bogobench.rb' 100 times… …done. real 0m0.732s user 0m0.289s sys 0m0.273s Linode with Ubuntu: $ ruby -v ruby 1.9.3p392 (2013-02-22 revision 39386) [i686-linux] $ time ./runner.sh ruby…

You aren't doing an apples to apples comparison. For example, try the AWK case 100 times and see which is faster.

Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting

#24

Post by marknutter »

robin_reala wrote: post #5

rubinius 2.0.0.rc1 (1.8.7 release yyyy-mm-dd JI) [x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu] I’ve no idea how fast Rubinius is compared to MRI 1.9.3 or 2.0 but it’s not exactly the standard interpreter. I wonder why it was chosen?

At least do it on all three major implementations. I'd be especially curious to see how it runs in JRuby.

Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting

#27

Post by byroot »

cafard wrote: post #2

Heaven knows that saving milliseconds on printing "Hello, world" is a major priority with me. Suppose that you were to demonstrate the Perl is even slower than Ruby. Would that make a difference for me? No, not unless I found that it was a bottleneck in our operations. I would keep on with Perl for two primary reasons: having used it since Perl 4, I know it in my fingers; CPAN.

The point here is to benchmark the startup time. Given how long can be some VMs to boot it's not that stupid.

The stupid things in that benchmark is that there is obviously something wrong with his ruby. Even rubinius should be an order of magnitude faster to load.

Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting

#30

Post by byroot »

gizmo wrote: post #17

Just in case this post isn't satire this post is inane. And I know I risk being seen as "that guy" with the shallow and dismissive comment. Scripting languages should be "fast enough". That's an intentionally vague requirement. And Ruby is indisputably "fast enough" for a billion little usecases. Of course it would be better if ruby were to start up instantly. But it's absolutely not a dealbreaker and to suggest Java…

It's not even about the silliness of his benchmark.

His rubinius is bugged or badly compiled. Anyone who try to reproduce his benchmark will see it.

Post reply on HN