Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting
1–10 of 30 posts
Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting
#2Heaven 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.
Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting
#3Runtime speed is the defining metric of a scripting language, then?
Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting
#4Nice how the test is performed on a release candidate version of Rubinius instead of a MRI release such as 1.9.3 or 2.0.0. This is quite a contrived test. Test it against MRI 1.9.3 and 2.0.0 and I'll consider it more accurate.
Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting
#5rubinius 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?
Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting
#6rubinius 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.
Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting
#7[deleted]
Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting
#8The only thing that sucks is this lackluster submission somehow being on the front page.
Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting
#9Code and comments in the same font and size? Irritating (at least on my phone)
2. When you talk at the end about awk and Rexx, you say they are from the 70s.. As if that's suppose to indicate they would be slower than a modern language. That's the opposite.. Of course a language designed to run on 40 year old hardware runs fat on modern hardware vs a language designed to run on modern hardware.
Re: Startling new proof that Ruby sucks at scripting
#10It's cool to see how all these little examples are run for a variety of languages -- which most devs haven't used.
A Clojure example would have been really slow because Clojure adds even more slowness to the already incredibly slow JVM startup time (big Clojure fan here btw).
But it's nothing new: we know that Java, for example, totally and utterly sucks at scripting and there's a reason why scripts commonly piped on Unx systems aren't written in Java.
You still can* do some scripting in Java (or Ruby for that matters) but you have to keep in mind that it's going to be really slow.
And, yes, startup time for scripts does matter: once again there's a reason why small utils regularly piped are typically written in languages allowing fast startup time.