4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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 agoIf 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 agoIndeed, it's too bad that the transition has been taking so long.
- Locke1689 16y agoFYI, compilers are written completely different from interpreters. Bytecode languages are compiled as well.
- silentbicycle 16y agoI know, but often when people make that distinction, it's concerned with what performance ballpark the language has rather than strictly implementation issues.