4 ms·
This is nonsense. Ruby's MRI interpreter can be beaten by an unusually wide margin because it is unusually slow for an interpreter of a language like Ruby. Go
by sah 18y ago
This is nonsense. Ruby's MRI interpreter can be beaten by an unusually wide margin because it is unusually slow for an interpreter of a language like Ruby. Go look at the benchmarks on http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ -- on many benchmarks, fast implementations of similar dynamic languages like Python, Scheme, and (tellingly) Smalltalk beat Ruby's MRI by ~10x.
- fiaz 18y agoIs there a section that benchmarks interpreters within the same language against one another? I think the point of this article was to see how realistic the promises of MagLev are compared to the fruits of labor of other teams building specifically Ruby interpreters for the last couple of years.
- rbanffy 18y agoThe question whether it is possible to make Ruby faster is very close to how fast can we make other similar languages. If we can make a system run Smalltalk much faster than the same system can run the best Ruby implementation, we know something in the Ruby implementation is very wrong. Every language in this league solves very similar problems. It's the techniques people use to solve them that make the difference in performance. While not as good as directly comparing different Ruby implementations, the results of comparing similar languages lend some credibility to the Maglev claims.