5 ms·
For our use even assembly does not "rip Ruby apart.", looking at our 2 most common pages, topic list page and topic page, 30-50% of the time is still spent in
by sams99 14y ago
For our use even assembly does not "rip Ruby apart.", looking at our 2 most common pages, topic list page and topic page, 30-50% of the time is still spent in SQL. Ruby 2.0 bring decent launch times to Rails (important for dev) due to the fixes falcon committed. Overall, the execution engine itself is pretty sweet and we have incredible visibility into the inner workings with flame graphs http://samsaffron.com/archive/2013/03/19/flame-graphs-in-ruby-miniprofiler http://samsaffron.com/archive/2013/03/19/flame-graphs-in-rub... .
There is plenty of optimisation work left to do, but the vast majority of the issues we encounter can be addresses in either the application or libraries.
Sure, Google Go is much faster, no arguing there. Python and PyPy oth would be ballpark similar to Ruby 2.0 these days from benches I have seen.
- nathan_long 14y ago>> 30-50% of the time is still spent in SQL This. Ruby may be slow compared to compiled languages, but after working on Rails apps where it takes 30 seconds to run the tests, I was delighted to develop a gem using TDD. My gem has 100+ tests, and the suite starts and finishes in less than a second. Our apps' tests suites are slow mainly because of database access, secondarily because of Rails, with Ruby itself being the smallest factor.
- sams99 14y agoyeah ... we have the exact same problem http://meta.discourse.org/t/how-can-we-speed-up-our-test-suite/3531 http://meta.discourse.org/t/how-can-we-speed-up-our-test-sui...
- fijal 14y agoer, Python and PyPy are not in the same ballpark, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.