Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
docs.topazruby.com
Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
1–10 of 190 posts
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#2Why not implemented on Erlang OTP?
Ruby and Python share the same scaling issues, so I don't see a benefit it combining them or migrate from one to the other.
I also dislike the "high performance" claims without showing a single performance comparison. Not to mention the state of implementation completeness of the language.
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#3Why not implemented on Erlang OTP? Ruby and Python share the same scaling issues, so I don't see a benefit it combining them or migrate from one to the other. I also dislike the "high performance" claims without showing a single performance comparison. Not to mention the state of implementation completeness of the language.
What does that have to do with the article?
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#4Forgive me for asking what may be a very stupid question: Can someone explain to me the need for a Ruby interpreter built on top of Python? He mentions performance in the announcement, but is this really going to be faster than, say, MRI? Thanks in advance.
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#5Why not implemented on Erlang OTP? Ruby and Python share the same scaling issues, so I don't see a benefit it combining them or migrate from one to the other. I also dislike the "high performance" claims without showing a single performance comparison. Not to mention the state of implementation completeness of the language.
Its implemented on top of RPython, which is something completely different then Python, the runtime.
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#6I'm curious to see how this compares to MRI/Rubinius/JRuby once it's feature-complete; the PyPy vs. CPython benchmarks these days are pretty convincing.
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#7Why not implemented on Erlang OTP? Ruby and Python share the same scaling issues, so I don't see a benefit it combining them or migrate from one to the other. I also dislike the "high performance" claims without showing a single performance comparison. Not to mention the state of implementation completeness of the language.
[deleted]
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#8Why not implemented on Erlang OTP? Ruby and Python share the same scaling issues, so I don't see a benefit it combining them or migrate from one to the other. I also dislike the "high performance" claims without showing a single performance comparison. Not to mention the state of implementation completeness of the language.
I think you're missing the point. It's not written in Python. It's written i RPython, which is vastly different. Technology behind this and PyPy is the same, however there is no Python usage here.
Additionally, erlang has avoided scaling issues by being functional. This might be good or bad, depending on your viewpoint, but just implementing a ruby interpreter in erlang won't cut, because you're not answering any of the hard questions about the state. You might answer "meh, ruby is just a broken language", but well, this has nothing to do with that article.
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#9I'm curious to see how this compares to MRI/Rubinius/JRuby once it's feature-complete; the PyPy vs. CPython benchmarks these days are pretty convincing.
One of the major launch criterion was having "enough of Ruby that the performance won't change". What does that mean in practice? We have exceptions, we have bindings, and we have all manner of other obscure corner cases. Charles Nutter (JRuby dev) writes about this: http://blog.headius.com/2012/10/so-you-want-to-optimize-ruby...
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#10Completely unscientific, but if these outputs are any indication, this is going to be great news for Rubby users in the future...
$ time ruby -e "puts 'hello world'"
hello world
real 0m0.184s
user 0m0.079s
sys 0m0.092s
$ time ~/Downloads/topaz/bin/topaz -e "puts 'hello world'"
hello world
real 0m0.007s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.004s