3 ms·

This is my favorite project we have at Engine Yard. I've been rooting for it and fighting to keep it alive for years now because I know that this is the future

This is my favorite project we have at Engine Yard. I've been rooting for it and fighting to keep it alive for years now because I know that this is the future of ruby. Evan and Brian and all the contributors have done great work on this ambitious project. I've had ruby aliased to rbx on my own personal laptop and run all of my development on rbx, I only have to bust out MRI every once in a while, like once a month. I write lots of code with event machine, redis, amqp and many other complex parts of ruby ecosystem and for the most part they all just work on rbx. Huge congrats to rubinius team again, I predict this will be the default ruby for most people inside of a year if not 6 months. Rubinius is ruby done right IMHO.

sandGorgon 16y ago
what is the performance as compared to Enterprise Edition ?
- WALoeIII 16y ago
  Its a totally different beast, not an apples to apples comparison. EE is simply a patched MRI, so it will be faster on strings (known issues with rbx), but rbx has generation GC and JIT which can only improve. Right now in my limited testing the performance is a wash, but if your app is memory hungry the improved GC is worth it alone. If your app is CPU heavy the JIT becomes your friend. The only way to be sure its to test it (how about running your test suite on it?), but I suspect rbx is going to get very fast as soon as a few big players shift on to it and the sweet spots for the tuning knobs are discovered.
- acangiano 16y ago
  I'll publish my shootout soon, and it will include Rubinius 1.0.
- jshen 16y ago
  I ran a benchmark on a library i'm working on (fuzzy auto complete), and rubinius was the fastest (I didn't test 1.9). The code is pure ruby, it creates a decent sized trie then walks it once to set data in each node (a sequential forward index, etc). I'll release the code once my library is ready for public consumption, but the numbers were (in seconds): rubinius ~ 4.85 jruby 1.5 ~ 5.45 mri 1.8.7 ~ 9.35 ree 1.8.7 ~ 9.35 and Yes, I did a warm up.
  - headius 16y ago
    I'd love to see your benchmark to understand why JRuby wasn't faster than that. I assume you ran with the --server flag to JRuby as well.

sandGorgon 16y ago

what is the performance as compared to Enterprise Edition ?

WALoeIII 16y ago
Its a totally different beast, not an apples to apples comparison. EE is simply a patched MRI, so it will be faster on strings (known issues with rbx), but rbx has generation GC and JIT which can only improve. Right now in my limited testing the performance is a wash, but if your app is memory hungry the improved GC is worth it alone. If your app is CPU heavy the JIT becomes your friend. The only way to be sure its to test it (how about running your test suite on it?), but I suspect rbx is going to get very fast as soon as a few big players shift on to it and the sweet spots for the tuning knobs are discovered.
acangiano 16y ago
I'll publish my shootout soon, and it will include Rubinius 1.0.
jshen 16y ago
I ran a benchmark on a library i'm working on (fuzzy auto complete), and rubinius was the fastest (I didn't test 1.9). The code is pure ruby, it creates a decent sized trie then walks it once to set data in each node (a sequential forward index, etc). I'll release the code once my library is ready for public consumption, but the numbers were (in seconds): rubinius ~ 4.85 jruby 1.5 ~ 5.45 mri 1.8.7 ~ 9.35 ree 1.8.7 ~ 9.35 and Yes, I did a warm up.
- headius 16y ago
  I'd love to see your benchmark to understand why JRuby wasn't faster than that. I assume you ran with the --server flag to JRuby as well.