4 ms·
For many systems performance matters. Claiming that there is no difference between Ruby and C is just sticking your head in the sand.
by trailfox 13y ago
For many systems performance matters. Claiming that there is no difference between Ruby and C is just sticking your head in the sand.
- lucian1900 13y agoI only claimed that this is a not a useful (representative) benchmark, not that there is no difference between Ruby or C.
- freework 13y agoYou can build an application in Ruby, deploy it onto 15 machines, and it will outperform the same application written in C and deployed to only one machine. Performance is more of a function of the underlying hardware than the language used to build it.
- trailfox 13y agoIf a language is 30x less efficient than another language then you would likely need 30x more servers. Many folk are simply not prepared to spend 30x more than they need to on hardware. It's the difference between 20 servers and 600 servers. Case in point: "How We Went from 30 Servers to 2": http://blog.iron.io/2013/03/how-we-went-from-30-servers-to-2-go.html http://blog.iron.io/2013/03/how-we-went-from-30-servers-to-2...
- kbenson 13y agoThat's only true when you are using the full resources of one or more servers. If you are only using 1/100th of the server's resources, then being 30x less efficient still doesn't require any more servers. That doesn't negate the point though, language performance matters at certain scales.
- oberhamsi 13y agoIf you split a single app instance onto 15 machines, you will lose some efficiency due to network communication unless those 15 instances can work isolated without any shared data (sessions). That may not be much but worst case: you have to write that inter-machine sync code.