4 ms·

If that were the case, they could have just run JRuby and avoided rewriting a bunch of code. The truth is, Scala is actually helpful with the architecture they

If that were the case, they could have just run JRuby and avoided rewriting a bunch of code. The truth is, Scala is actually helpful with the architecture they came up with AND its great that it runs on the JVM.

suresk 14y ago
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (static typed languages are going to be faster on the JVM), but JRuby - partially with the help of invokedynamic, added in Java 7 - has come a long way performance-wise since Twitter began their rewrite. I wonder if they would have done anything different, had JRuby been where it is now?
- spullara 14y ago
  JRuby, even when using a lot of Java based libraries, doesn't get you the performance boost you need — it is just incremental over Ruby and even then only with some code.
thebluesky 14y ago
...except that JRuby is 3-100x slower than Java: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=jruby&lang2=java http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al...
- igouy 14y ago
  No, JRuby is not 3-100x slower than Java. Those 10 tiny tiny Ruby programs are 3-100x slower than the Java programs written for the tasks.