3 ms·
V8 convinced me it's not quite impossible to optimize such a highly dynamic language. JRuby on JVM 1.7 could be decent once everyone has a lot of experience wit
by prodigal_erik 15y ago
V8 convinced me it's not quite impossible to optimize such a highly dynamic language. JRuby on JVM 1.7 could be decent once everyone has a lot of experience with invokedynamic. But most have found MRI is nearly as slow as Zend (PHP), and we picked up 6x performance by migrating our critical stuff from there to Java (we have enough machines to easily make that worthwhile).
I've already found Ruby nice for stuff we're confident we don't have a reason to scale, though.
- MrMcDowall 15y agoThat's the point I'm making - MRI is slow.
- prodigal_erik 15y agoFrom what I gather, JRuby on pre-invokedynamic JVMs isn't substantially faster than MRI 1.9. Parallelism brings more cores to bear, but then they're all bogged down in expensive dispatch (to pay for the ability to change behavior for any message at any moment).
- MrMcDowall 15y agoI've not seen any substantial or conclusive figures on this yet - if you know of any I'd welcome seeing them.