3 ms·
> MRI Ruby was slow and problematic. Why problematic? On the slowness, I would agree that Ruby is slower than many languages, but as an interpreted language t
by cplanas 6y ago
> MRI Ruby was slow and problematic.
Why problematic?
On the slowness, I would agree that Ruby is slower than many languages, but as an interpreted language this is -up to a certain point- by design, or at least an accepted part of the trade-off one accepts when he takes a programming language. Moreover, Ruby's natural competitor is Python, not -say- Clojure; and I wouldn't that Ruby is significantly slower than Python.
- nextos 6y agoIt had lots of memory leaks. I love Ruby, and I used it anyway, but this bothered me a lot back in the mid-to-late 2000s.
- jaggederest 6y agoIt's gotten a lot better since then, but so have all the other languages! I still love Ruby but I would use Python for ML in a heartbeat.
- zeku 6y agoI work with Ruby, Python, and R daily. I use Ruby for everything I can, Python for ML, and R for data analysis. I just find it easier to not swim upstream and force ruby onto all of those contexts when the other 2 languages have loads of inertia behind them in those spaces. It's unfortunate.
- mperham 6y agoThe ever present memory bloat with Ruby has been discovered to be a glibc issue. Jemalloc makes MRI memory usage much more predictable and stable.