Ruby Implementation Shootout 112
An anonymous reader writes "Ruby has an ever growing number of alternative implementations, and many of these attempt to improve the suboptimal performance of the current mainstream interpreter. Antonio Cangiano has an interesting article in which he benchmarks a few of the most popular Ruby implementations, including Yarv (the heart of Ruby 2.0), JRuby, Ruby.NET, Rubinius and Cardinal (Ruby on Parrot). Numerical evidence is provided rather than shear opinions. The tests show that Yarv is the fastest implementation and that it offers a promising future when it comes to the speed of the next Ruby version."
Read the disclaimer... (Score:3, Insightful)
Java not slow enough for you? Try Ruby! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cardinal interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Any YARV experts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so... ruby? (Score:1, Insightful)
Well thought of is debatable as RoR is an "opinionated software": if you don't like the way DHH (the framework's creator) works you're going down fast.
Efficient, no damn way, Rails itself is not really fast and it's implemented on top of a very slow language (Ruby), unless you're talking about programmer time Rails is not efficient at all, and in the programmer-time-efficiency land it has a lot of competition (e.g. Django in Python-lang).
Other than that, Ruby's a nice language, takes many features from Smalltalk and makes them easier to use, I think it could be a nice stepping stone:
Re:Java not slow enough for you? Try Ruby! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Any YARV experts (Score:5, Insightful)
This rule isn't exactly hard and fast, as verying implementations of VMs and interpreters can have different performance characteristics. For example, while perl is still probably considered an interpreted language, it's quite fast due to the interpreter using many compiler tricks such as parse tree optimizations. The ruby interpreter however has been notoriously slow, which is why ruby people are so excited about it.
Re:so... ruby? (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it amusing someone would say learn Python because it's used more. Python may be older, but it's still sitting in the programming language high chair right next to Ruby. People say the same thing about Python; "if you want a job learn Java, c#, c++"; and you know what they're right, if you want a job learn Java, period.
I like both Ruby and Python, and I think a programmer would do well to learn one or both. They aren't as popular yet, like Java or c#, but I think they will be. And if you understand the concepts in one, you'll understand the other. Like Gretzky said, "I skate where the puck is going to be, not where it is"; good advice.
I prefer Ruby, but that is just a preference.
Re:so... ruby? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Java not slow enough for you? Try Ruby! (Score:3, Insightful)
400 times slower? Still too efficient. Consider a Ruby implementation on the JVM and multiply inefficiencies! Should be thousands of times slower for those same benchmarks.
About JRuby; Sun recently hired [slashdot.org] two (both?) of the JRuby developers and progress has accelerated [codehaus.org]. The promise is a highly capable Ruby implementation running on a JVM. This, coupled with very recent changes to the JVM [artima.com] to facilitate scripting languages could lead to an interesting future. Sun is also leveraging the JVM for other language projects such as Fortress [sunsource.net].
Apparently Sun isn't content to let Microsoft's CLR become the de facto standard bytecode runtime platform. I don't know whether it's possible to make Ruby performance on the JVM competitive with native implementations, but I am hoping.
Re:Ruby's Windows support (Score:1, Insightful)
Perl, for one, acquired decent Windows support in the late 1990s... at a time when it was younger than Ruby is today.
Re:Ruby's Windows support (Score:3, Insightful)
And when will that happen, exactly? I've been hearing about R/RoR for years now, and it's still distinctly in the low-performance category. Yet every time I go visit the site for updates all I see is talk about how they're adding feature X and Y in the next point release.
These guys need to stop dinking with the language, freeze it, and work on fixing bugs and increasing performance so people out here in the real world can actually use it.
Unfortunately, like most OSS projects it seems that it's cooler to add the feature-of-the-day, rather than do the actual work needed to make it a stable and solid development platform...
Re:Ruby's Windows support (Score:2, Insightful)
Ruby's almost 14 years old! By 2001, Perl had fantastic Windows support.
Now people may deploy Ruby or Perl or Python or PHP applications to Unix and Unix-like servers, but I know plenty of people who develop on Windows. Some of them even have a choice.
Re:Why not use C (Score:2, Insightful)
But really, Ruby's for more than just Web stuff. (As is Python and the rest.)
Re:Java not slow enough for you? Try Ruby! (Score:3, Insightful)
Except speed of code development.
So for my one-off scripts that run for 45s in ruby instead of 0.1s in perl, well
what's mattered to me is that it took 5 mins to write, rather than the 90mins +
a brain tumor that perl does*
* I last used perl at about 4.036, tried to get into "objects" with perl 5, and
jumped to ruby for the sake of my sanity.