3 ms·

False. Erlang is compiled natively via HIPE (the "High Performance Erlang" compiler, nice acronym!) on many platforms, and compiled to BEAM bytecode on the rest

False. Erlang is compiled natively via HIPE (the "High Performance Erlang" compiler, nice acronym!) on many platforms, and compiled to BEAM bytecode on the rest. Running Erlang has some overhead, sure, but that's because it's designed for distributed systems where you can pull a plug out of the wall without interrupting service. I wouldn't use Erlang for number crunching, but using it as a glue language for a networked system hits all its strong points.

sedachv 16y ago
I didn't know that, I thought everything ran on beam. I guess the point is the canonical Ruby implementation is really slow when it doesn't need to be. It's not like it's a hard problem, or even that it hasn't already been solved (look at GemStone's Maglev: http://ruby.gemstone.com/ http://ruby.gemstone.com/)
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  I've stopped commenting about MRI entirely, it just makes people mad, and it's not even fun anymore. It's too easy. Still, I have to give Matz credit for making a language a lot of people sincerely love. I know it's splitting hairs whether bytecode + a VM counts as compiled or interpreted (it's both, really), but compiling to bytecode rather than a pure interpreter usually makes enough of a difference performance-wise that it's worth giving some credit.
  - chc 16y ago
    If people would just stop talking about Ruby 1.8, it wold allow for more meaningful discussion. 1.9 is a lot faster and has better support for concurrency.
    - silentbicycle 16y ago
      Indeed, it's too bad that the transition has been taking so long.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    FYI, compilers are written completely different from interpreters. Bytecode languages are compiled as well.
    - silentbicycle 16y ago
      I know, but often when people make that distinction, it's concerned with what performance ballpark the language has rather than strictly implementation issues.

sedachv 16y ago

I didn't know that, I thought everything ran on beam. I guess the point is the canonical Ruby implementation is really slow when it doesn't need to be. It's not like it's a hard problem, or even that it hasn't already been solved (look at GemStone's Maglev: http://ruby.gemstone.com/ http://ruby.gemstone.com/)

silentbicycle 16y ago
I've stopped commenting about MRI entirely, it just makes people mad, and it's not even fun anymore. It's too easy. Still, I have to give Matz credit for making a language a lot of people sincerely love. I know it's splitting hairs whether bytecode + a VM counts as compiled or interpreted (it's both, really), but compiling to bytecode rather than a pure interpreter usually makes enough of a difference performance-wise that it's worth giving some credit.
- chc 16y ago
  If people would just stop talking about Ruby 1.8, it wold allow for more meaningful discussion. 1.9 is a lot faster and has better support for concurrency.
  - silentbicycle 16y ago
    Indeed, it's too bad that the transition has been taking so long.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  FYI, compilers are written completely different from interpreters. Bytecode languages are compiled as well.
  - silentbicycle 16y ago
    I know, but often when people make that distinction, it's concerned with what performance ballpark the language has rather than strictly implementation issues.