6 ms·

Ruby 2.6.0-preview1 Released

173 points by petercooper 9y ago

petercooper 9y ago
Three worthwhile reads for anyone interested in the new (M)JIT: https://medium.com/@k0kubun/the-method-jit-compiler-for-ruby-2-6-388ee0989c13 https://medium.com/@k0kubun/the-method-jit-compiler-for-ruby... https://medium.com/square-corner-blog/rubys-new-jit-91a5c864dd10 https://medium.com/square-corner-blog/rubys-new-jit-91a5c864... https://www.johnhawthorn.com/2018/02/playing-with-ruby-jit-mjit/ https://www.johnhawthorn.com/2018/02/playing-with-ruby-jit-m...
- igravious 9y ago
  Thank you for the links sir, for anyone short on time the first link is from the patch committer themselves. Definitely worth a read to get an insight into what's going on. Optcarrot has gone from 37.2 fps with Ruby 2.0.0 to potentially 59.2 fps with 2.6.0-dev. Wow!
sadiqmmm 9y ago
Thanks, awesome :)
jhoechtl 9y ago
Don't hold your breath: > MJIT takes a block of ruby’s YARV bytecode and converts it into what is basically an inlined version of the C code it would have run when interpreting it. > In some ways, this is the same as what other JITs do: they compile bytecode into machine code at runtime. I don’t know of another JIT which so directly shells out to an off-the-shelf C compiler. This will never scale out (embedded?) and has tons of security issues. The only high grade JIT solution anywhere available for a dynamically typed language is LuaJIT - I don't know of the social implications of all the involved here why this solution never took of and found more widespread use in other languages like Ruby or Python
- pjmlp 9y ago
  I doubt LuaJIT is better than Common Lisp or JavaScript JIT compilers. On the other hand, if forking a C compiler for generating code is "fast", that tells a lot about the slowness of regular Ruby interpreters.
  - byroot 9y ago
    >if forking a C compiler for generating code is "fast" I don't think anyone claimed this, even the author report a 6 times slower boot time. However the generated code once loaded is "fast". Also I haven't followed the projects that closely, but if I'm understanding correctly, that shell out to the compiler is a stub.
    - orf 9y ago
      How dynamic is Lua compared to Python though?
  - bjoli 9y ago
    LuaJIT is probably faster than the modern JavaScript engines. I don't know how it compares to something like SBCL, but as a JIT for dynamic languages it's pretty much the bee's knees. I have had it beat carefully written PyPy code by an order of magnitude several times
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Actually when I think in Common Lisp compilers, I think about Allegro Common Lisp and LispWorks. As for JavaScript, it is really hard to envision how it can beat the money spent by Mozilla, Apple, Google and Microsoft, including universities sponsored by them, in JavaScript JIT optimization research.
      - marmaduke 9y ago
        I think it’s not so much that the effort invested is better (though Pall has strong reputation) but in large part that Lua’s semantics make for easier JIT.
geraldbauer 9y ago
FYI: I collect articles about all things 3x3 at Planet Ruby (incl. the new jit (mjit), of course), see https://planetruby.github.io/calendar/ruby3x3 https://planetruby.github.io/calendar/ruby3x3. Cheers.
ksec 9y ago
119 points, I mean HN doesn't care about Ruby anymore. But, I wanted to say Ruby MJIT, developed by Vladimir Makarov, and this base infrastructure variant merge from k0kubun, both doing do all on their own free time. It isn't a company sponsoring any of them to work on it. Sometimes I wonder if Ruby JIT somehow do save those companies millions, would they give donate some of them back to further develop Ruby.

173 points by petercooper 9y ago

Three worthwhile reads for anyone interested in the new (M)JIT: https://medium.com/@k0kubun/the-method-jit-compiler-for-ruby-2-6-388ee0989c13 https://medium.com/@k0kubun/the-method-jit-compiler-for-ruby... https://medium.com/square-corner-blog/rubys-new-jit-91a5c864dd10 https://medium.com/square-corner-blog/rubys-new-jit-91a5c864... https://www.johnhawthorn.com/2018/02/playing-with-ruby-jit-mjit/ https://www.johnhawthorn.com/2018/02/playing-with-ruby-jit-m...

igravious 9y ago
Thank you for the links sir, for anyone short on time the first link is from the patch committer themselves. Definitely worth a read to get an insight into what's going on. Optcarrot has gone from 37.2 fps with Ruby 2.0.0 to potentially 59.2 fps with 2.6.0-dev. Wow!

sadiqmmm 9y ago

Thanks, awesome :)

jhoechtl 9y ago

Don't hold your breath: > MJIT takes a block of ruby’s YARV bytecode and converts it into what is basically an inlined version of the C code it would have run when interpreting it. > In some ways, this is the same as what other JITs do: they compile bytecode into machine code at runtime. I don’t know of another JIT which so directly shells out to an off-the-shelf C compiler. This will never scale out (embedded?) and has tons of security issues. The only high grade JIT solution anywhere available for a dynamically typed language is LuaJIT - I don't know of the social implications of all the involved here why this solution never took of and found more widespread use in other languages like Ruby or Python

pjmlp 9y ago
I doubt LuaJIT is better than Common Lisp or JavaScript JIT compilers. On the other hand, if forking a C compiler for generating code is "fast", that tells a lot about the slowness of regular Ruby interpreters.
- byroot 9y ago
  >if forking a C compiler for generating code is "fast" I don't think anyone claimed this, even the author report a 6 times slower boot time. However the generated code once loaded is "fast". Also I haven't followed the projects that closely, but if I'm understanding correctly, that shell out to the compiler is a stub.
  - orf 9y ago
    How dynamic is Lua compared to Python though?
- bjoli 9y ago
  LuaJIT is probably faster than the modern JavaScript engines. I don't know how it compares to something like SBCL, but as a JIT for dynamic languages it's pretty much the bee's knees. I have had it beat carefully written PyPy code by an order of magnitude several times
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Actually when I think in Common Lisp compilers, I think about Allegro Common Lisp and LispWorks. As for JavaScript, it is really hard to envision how it can beat the money spent by Mozilla, Apple, Google and Microsoft, including universities sponsored by them, in JavaScript JIT optimization research.
    - marmaduke 9y ago
      I think it’s not so much that the effort invested is better (though Pall has strong reputation) but in large part that Lua’s semantics make for easier JIT.

geraldbauer 9y ago

FYI: I collect articles about all things 3x3 at Planet Ruby (incl. the new jit (mjit), of course), see https://planetruby.github.io/calendar/ruby3x3 https://planetruby.github.io/calendar/ruby3x3. Cheers.

ksec 9y ago

119 points, I mean HN doesn't care about Ruby anymore. But, I wanted to say Ruby MJIT, developed by Vladimir Makarov, and this base infrastructure variant merge from k0kubun, both doing do all on their own free time. It isn't a company sponsoring any of them to work on it. Sometimes I wonder if Ruby JIT somehow do save those companies millions, would they give donate some of them back to further develop Ruby.