5 ms·
Wouldn't it make more sense to test various features of Ruby for comparison rather than comparing an entire web framework? Given that, the URL should be israil
by matthuggins 13y ago
Wouldn't it make more sense to test various features of Ruby for comparison rather than comparing an entire web framework? Given that, the URL should be israilsfastyet.com, or more appropriately howdoesrailsbehaveonvariousrubyversions.com
- mikesilvis 13y agoAgreed. This is much more of a test of the rails framework then ruby
- jrochkind1 13y agoWell, it's a comparison of different ruby versions, using Rails. That's pretty useful to people who use Rails, which is a lot of people. Of course, it's not a real Rails app presumably, but just a sample/dummy one. So you may or may not see comparable speed-up with a real app. But it's probably suggestive of the upper limit of improvement you can get by switching ruby versions. "Will I get a performance improvement from my Rails app by upgrading ruby" is a real question a lot of people will have. Micro-benchmarks of ruby wouldn't answer it as well as the OP does.
- jeltz 13y agoNot really since it does not compare it to another other benchmarks. This is a test of how the performance of MRI ruby has changed over time.
- regularfry 13y agoIf you test small features, you get knocked for concentrating on microbenchmarks which don't have any real-world meaning. If you test whole applications or frameworks, you get criticised for benchmarking that rather than the language implementation.
- Liru 13y agoThe criticism is with the name, not the features tested.