3 ms·
Of course; Get a native JIT'ed version of ruby going, then you can make a fair comparison.
by jcapote 18y ago
Of course; Get a native JIT'ed version of ruby going, then you can make a fair comparison.
- NyxWulf 18y agoUnlike say...JRuby?
- jim-greer 18y agoJRuby is not a JIT for Ruby, and it doesn't compile Ruby to Java bytecode. It's a Ruby interpreter, written in Java.
- cschneid 18y agoRecent work in JRuby does exactly that. It'll JIT your code, and you an even pre-compile if you want. (AFAIK, just seen references to all this).
- jim-greer 18y agoCool! Looks like it's been around for over a year: http://wiki.jruby.org/wiki/JRuby_Compiler http://wiki.jruby.org/wiki/JRuby_Compiler
- jcl 18y agoFor what it's worth, JRuby performs a tiny bit better. I think Ruby in general is less amenable to analysis/compilation than Lua is, so even a JITed Ruby might not do as well as Lua.
- Zak 18y ago"Fair" comparisons of the sort you're talking about are not useful when choosing a language. If I'm choosing a language for an application, I don't care if it's unfair that one is much faster than the other because it has a JIT compiler instead of an interpreter - I only care which one is the most suitable.
- vegai 18y agoThat's like saying "Of course, get a non-sucky version of ruby going, then you can make a fair comparison."