2 ms·

What's preventing Ruby 2.0 from "using multiple processes to spread the load"? >>if you can just call out to C libraries for everything<< You can't just call

by igouy 14y ago

What's preventing Ruby 2.0 from "using multiple processes to spread the load"? >>if you can just call out to C libraries for everything<< You can't just call out for everything. There have been language implementations that used GMP under-the-covers, so - to level the playing field - everyone can call out for GMP and PCRE.

petercooper 14y ago
Nothing, it seems. But a benchmark is pointless if you aren't comparing like for like, yet people are clearly taking the results as some sort of serious indicator. As it is, it's like sending two different cars around two different tracks and comparing how long they took.
- igouy 14y ago
  >>But a benchmark is pointless if you aren't comparing like for like<< According to you it defeats the point when we do compare like to like -- "if you can just call out to C libraries". >>yet people are clearly taking the results as some sort of serious indicator<< Offer them something better. >>sending two different cars around two different tracks<< No. It's like saying here's the track - Ruby guy bring out your best cars, Python guy bring out your best cars - and sending them around the same track. The possible mismatch between programs written for quad-core and those written for single-core is marked. You can mention the difference between CPU time and wall-clock time because both are intentionally shown, along with "CPU Load" so you can see how much difference quad-core has made. And as draegtun informed you, there's another set of measurements that removes that difference by forcing all the programs onto a single core. The problem with the Ruby binary-trees programs is that they run out of memory. http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/program.php?test=binarytrees&lang=yarv&id=2 http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/program.php?tes...

2 ms·

What's preventing Ruby 2.0 from "using multiple processes to spread the load"? >>if you can just call out to C libraries for everything<< You can't just call

by igouy 14y ago

petercooper 14y ago
Nothing, it seems. But a benchmark is pointless if you aren't comparing like for like, yet people are clearly taking the results as some sort of serious indicator. As it is, it's like sending two different cars around two different tracks and comparing how long they took.
- igouy 14y ago
  >>But a benchmark is pointless if you aren't comparing like for like<< According to you it defeats the point when we do compare like to like -- "if you can just call out to C libraries". >>yet people are clearly taking the results as some sort of serious indicator<< Offer them something better. >>sending two different cars around two different tracks<< No. It's like saying here's the track - Ruby guy bring out your best cars, Python guy bring out your best cars - and sending them around the same track. The possible mismatch between programs written for quad-core and those written for single-core is marked. You can mention the difference between CPU time and wall-clock time because both are intentionally shown, along with "CPU Load" so you can see how much difference quad-core has made. And as draegtun informed you, there's another set of measurements that removes that difference by forcing all the programs onto a single core. The problem with the Ruby binary-trees programs is that they run out of memory. http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/program.php?test=binarytrees&lang=yarv&id=2 http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/program.php?tes...