5 ms·
The performance question is a good one. Erlang has never been a performance wonder, so I'd be surprised to hear that Elixir is noticeably faster than Ruby.
by mercurial 9y ago
The performance question is a good one. Erlang has never been a performance wonder, so I'd be surprised to hear that Elixir is noticeably faster than Ruby.
- Exuma 9y agoWhat are you talking about, its like an order of magnitude faster than ruby? It might not be as fast as Go or Java or whatever, but its not even a comparison to ruby, and particularly rails.
- mercurial 9y agoIs it really that much faster? I mean, Rails is a separate problem, but I would have put Erlang in the same perf bracket as Ruby/Perl/Python.
- Exuma 9y agoPerhaps in raw computation its more similar, but based on the context of your comment (and its parent), it seems more like you're comparing it to ruby+rails in a real-life scenario (say, a web app). (The original comment was about "what did he gain"?) In that case, the multithreaded nature of Elixir and the VM there's no comparison. I tried searching for raw ruby+erlang benchmarks but couldnt find much in the short time I looked.
- out_of_protocol 9y agoCan confirm, elixir+phoenix outperforms ruby+rails by ~10x. If we're talking about pure ruby and elixir, things become complicated, you can do some stuff a bit faster in ruby sometimes (where ruby is using native optimized C code)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bdcravens 9y agoRemember that the starting point for your comparison is Ruby. It's a great language, but not one you reach for if performance is a primary consideration. DHH even acknowledges this: "But sure, I'd like free CPU cycles too. I just happen to care much more about free developer cycles and am willing to trade the former for the latter."