4 ms·

I thought Ruby 3 was supposed to be 3x faster than version 2?

• Mikeb85 4y ago
  It is for many workloads. Just not Rails.
• joshspankit 4y ago
  That would have been almost impossible. Ruby was never designed as a “fast” language, but 3x is a huge number for anything this mature.
  • galangalalgol 4y ago
    Looking at the benchmark game, it seems 3x current performance would put it in the company of racket, which is still noticably slower than node js. While right now it is much closer to python. All benchmarks are misleading but it shows 10x slower than java, lisp, and pascal. Is there a reason that isn't actually representative of idiomatic use?
    • WJW 4y ago
      The benchmarks in the benchmark game are typically CPU bound, which heavily favors compiled languages for obvious reasons. With regards to what "idiomatic use" is for Ruby, we could argue that most ruby apps are web backends and most of those spend the majority of their waiting for DB and/or API calls and don't spend all that much doing work in actual Ruby.
      • galangalalgol 4y ago
        The same could be said for python with calls into numpy and pytorch consuming much of the time, but no one calls it designed for speed.
• spleen 4y ago
  3x increase when 3.0 is compared to 2.0[1]. I think it was largely achieved. [1] https://blog.heroku.com/ruby-3-by-3 https://blog.heroku.com/ruby-3-by-3
• breckenedge 4y ago
  https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2020/12/25/ruby-3-0-0-released/ https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2020/12/25/ruby-3-0-0-rele...
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]