Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Ruby > Speed sprint

Reply
Thread Tools

Speed sprint

 
 
Benedikt Müller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2010
Hi
We all know: Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there. I
think, this isn't the goal, but I also think, Ruby is too slow.
I would suggest, that a time, say two monthes or three, only speed
patches and bugfixes are accepted. So the development could be
concentrated on speed.
I'd like to hear what over users out there and the developers say to this idea.

--
Greetings, Benedikt

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alexander Jesner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2010
On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt Müller wrote:
> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there.

If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Benedikt Müller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2010
2010/2/22 Alexander Jesner <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt M=C3=BCller wrote:
>> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there.

> If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9.

Done, and I know that there are improvements. But it's not enough

--=20
Gru=C3=9F, Benedikt

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Arcieri
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2010
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Benedikt M=FCller <(E-Mail Removed)=
>wrote:


> Done, and I know that there are improvements. But it's not enough
>


Have you taken a look at some of the other Ruby implementations available,
such as JRuby, Rubinius, and MacRuby?

JRuby is able to leverage the performance features of the Java Virtual
Machine. Rubinius and MacRuby are both using LLVM to produce native code
from Ruby sources. Ruby 1.9, on the other hand, uses a stack machine
interpreter and does not compile to native code.

Depending on the specific nature of your performance problems, one of these
alternative implementations may be addressing your issues already.

--=20
Tony Arcieri
Medioh! A Kudelski Brand

 
Reply With Quote
 
Randall Alexander
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2010
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Benedikt M=C3=BCller <(E-Mail Removed)=
om>wrote:

> 2010/2/22 Alexander Jesner <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> > On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt M=C3=BCller wrote:
> >> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there.

> > If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9.

> Done, and I know that there are improvements. But it's not enough
>
> --
> Gru=C3=9F, Benedikt
>
> If you really want speed check out JRuby or MacRuby. From what I

understand they are usually a version behind regular Ruby but you have the
power of the JVM. I agree with speeding Ruby up to the credit of the core
team they did make an effort on the last release. I do think there are a
few other options. (Don't get me wrong I am not opposed to the speed sprint=
s
I just wanted to present other options) As far as I know the Ruby runtime
is missing lookahead ability. If that is correct adding lookahead could
give the runtime a huge performance boost. Another alternative to asking
the Ruby core team to do these sprints we could profile, make changes, and
submit the commits (and test cases) ourselves. I have never worked on open
source project before, but I am speaking with someone about how to get
involved and be a productive active member. It takes more than I originall=
y
thought.


--=20
Randy

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Klemme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2010
On 22.02.2010 20:47, Benedikt Mller wrote:
> 2010/2/22 Alexander Jesner <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>> On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt Mller wrote:
>>> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there.

>> If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9.

> Done, and I know that there are improvements. But it's not enough


You know that greed is one of the seven deadly sins, do you?

Kind regards

robert

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jörg W Mittag
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2010
Alexander Jesner wrote:
> On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt Müller wrote:
>> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there.

> If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9.


I have seen this claim that Ruby 1.9 is somehow faster than Ruby 1.8
repeated over and over again, but I have *never* seen any credible
evidence for that, neither in my own benchmarks nor in Antonio
Cangiano's (or any other, for that matter). Does anyone have any
evidence that this is actually the case? I would be very interested in
that.

jwm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chuck Remes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2010

On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:50 AM, J=F6rg W Mittag wrote:

> Alexander Jesner wrote:
>> On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt M=FCller wrote:
>>> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there.

>> If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9.

>=20
> I have seen this claim that Ruby 1.9 is somehow faster than Ruby 1.8
> repeated over and over again, but I have *never* seen any credible
> evidence for that, neither in my own benchmarks nor in Antonio
> Cangiano's (or any other, for that matter). Does anyone have any
> evidence that this is actually the case? I would be very interested in
> that.


Are you looking at the same benchmarks and charts that I am?

http://antoniocangiano.com/category/...nchmark-suite/

This clearly shows that 1.9.1 is consistently and measurably faster than =
1.8 in nearly every benchmark. My own experience proves this out too.=20

I am a recent convert to 1.9.1 after I discovered that it ran *all* of =
my scripts at least 50% faster than 1.8.7. Between 1.9.1 and JRuby I am =
loving my ruby performance lately. I am also tracking Rubinius closely; =
it is very fast but its performance is less consistent than MRI and =
JRuby so far.

cr


 
Reply With Quote
 
Benoit Daloze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2010
2010/2/23 J=F6rg W Mittag
<(E-Mail Removed)<JoergWMittag%2BR (E-Mail Removed)>
>


> Alexander Jesner wrote:
> > On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt M=FCller wrote:
> >> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there.

> > If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9.

>
> I have seen this claim that Ruby 1.9 is somehow faster than Ruby 1.8
> repeated over and over again, but I have *never* seen any credible
> evidence for that, neither in my own benchmarks nor in Antonio
> Cangiano's (or any other, for that matter). Does anyone have any
> evidence that this is actually the case? I would be very interested in
> that.
>
> jwm
>
> Hi,


"I have *never* seen" Maybe you didn't look enough. Anyway, I think there
are plenty of benchmarks ...

Test yourself and you'll see.
I think it's most of the time faster or equal in Ruby 1.9. There is a reaso=
n
for this speed improvement, I let you search it.

You mention usual Antonio Cangiano Benchmarks:
http://antoniocangiano.com/2007/02/1...otout-ruby-vs=
-yarv-vs-jruby-vs-gardens-point-ruby-net-vs-rubinius-vs-cardinal/

Well, there is a long time I keep traces of these benchmarks:

MBP =3D> MacBookPro, 2x2.26GHz, 2Go

P =3D> patchlevel
R =3D> revision
T =3D> trunk
Time Computer OS 32/64bit RubyVersion
0.684 MBP Mac 64 1.9.2 2010-01-14 T 26319
0.836 MBP Lin 32 1.9.2 2009-07-18 T 24186
0.899 MBP Mac 32 1.9.2 2009-11-04 T 25635
1.719 MBP Win 32 1.9.2 2009-07-18
1.850 MBP Mac 32 1.8.6 2008-08-11 P 287
2.000 MBP Mac 32 1.8.7 2009-12-24 P 248
2.406 MBP Win 32 1.9.1 2009-01-30 R 21907
2.937 MBP Win 32 1.8.6 2007-09-24 P 111

If that is not clear ...
All 1.9.2 are faster(more than 2 times here). The only exception is probabl=
y
due to better implementation of 1.8 on Mac than Windows (the 1.9.1 is
probably an early version too).

Regards,

B.D.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jörg W Mittag
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2010
Chuck Remes wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Jörg W Mittag wrote:
>> Alexander Jesner wrote:
>>> On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt Müller wrote:
>>>> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there.
>>> If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9.

>> I have seen this claim that Ruby 1.9 is somehow faster than Ruby 1.8
>> repeated over and over again, but I have *never* seen any credible
>> evidence for that, neither in my own benchmarks nor in Antonio
>> Cangiano's (or any other, for that matter). Does anyone have any
>> evidence that this is actually the case? I would be very interested in
>> that.

> Are you looking at the same benchmarks and charts that I am?
>
> http://antoniocangiano.com/category/...nchmark-suite/


Yes, I am.

> This clearly shows that 1.9.1 is consistently and measurably faster
> than 1.8 in nearly every benchmark.


No, it doesn't. It shows that 1.9.1 running on one VM is faster than
1.8 on a *totally different* VM. That's shoddy benchmarking. If you
want to benchmark 1.8 vs. 1.9, you benchmark 1.8 vs. 1.9 and not 1.8
and some other things vs. 1.9 and some totally unrelated, completely
different other things.

This is statistics 101, and is usually called "controlling your
variables", although the great Zed Shaw in his inimitable style said
it much better: "if you want to measure ****, don't measure other
****."

You claim that the performance increase is due to Ruby 1.9. But how do
you know that? How do you know it is not due to YARV? Or different
compiler options? Or different ./configure options? After all, it
wouldn't be the first time that Antonio had to withdraw or correct his
benchmark results.

> My own experience proves this out too.


Then show your results! As I wrote before: I would love to see them!

jwm
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Making Ringtones for Sanyo RL2000 (Sprint PCS phone) Sens Fan Happy In Ohio Computer Support 0 06-27-2004 01:28 AM
speed speed speed a.metselaar Computer Support 14 12-30-2003 03:34 AM
Anybody know the Etymology of the word 'Sprint' as in coding Sprint? Laura Creighton Python 0 09-13-2003 07:39 PM
Sprint J2ME Developer Website? gilgantic Java 3 08-06-2003 01:17 AM



Advertisments