4 ms·

He improved the performance of a few specific methods. Not of Ruby in general. Google translation of the article referenced in the article: http://translate.go

He improved the performance of a few specific methods. Not of Ruby in general. Google translation of the article referenced in the article: http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjibun.atmarkit.co.jp%2Fljibun01%2Frensai%2Fgenius%2F05%2F01.html&sl=ja&tl=en&history_state0= http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&... (mostly funny to read, as the translation is quite wacky) (Bablefish chokes on the site)

xpaulbettsx 17y ago
The methods he improved the perf of were in string, array, and struct. I think that counts as "globally improves performance", there are very few non-trivial methods that won't benefit.
- jackowayed 17y ago
  but they won't improve performance as much. AND the 63% figure was very misleading anyway since that's the best case, and average is only 8%. So basically, if your program does nothing but call those methods in such a way that it satisfies the best case improvement, it just got 63% faster at doing nothing. If your program does nothing but call those methods with the average case, it just got 8% faster at doing nothing. If your program uses anything else, it's probably only faster by a small fraction of that 8%.
  - WesleyJohnson 17y ago
    >..the 63% figure was very misleading anyway since that's the best case... Which is exactly what I took "up to 63%" to mean. I don't see that as misleading. If a drug administration company was listing off the side effects of a new over-the-counter drug and mentioned fatality rates we're on average, 2%, but failed to mention that the worst-case scenarios (where the patients were Hispanic females over the age 35) had a 80% fatality rate, would you also consider that misleading? Of course you would. So why is citing the extremes of a positive considered misleading, while citing extremes of a negative is almost expected?
- Hexstream 17y ago
  That's still a very long shot from "[Improving] Ruby 1.9 Performance By Up To 63%", which sounds like a global average improvement of 63% for all Ruby 1.9 programs...

xpaulbettsx 17y ago

The methods he improved the perf of were in string, array, and struct. I think that counts as "globally improves performance", there are very few non-trivial methods that won't benefit.

jackowayed 17y ago
but they won't improve performance as much. AND the 63% figure was very misleading anyway since that's the best case, and average is only 8%. So basically, if your program does nothing but call those methods in such a way that it satisfies the best case improvement, it just got 63% faster at doing nothing. If your program does nothing but call those methods with the average case, it just got 8% faster at doing nothing. If your program uses anything else, it's probably only faster by a small fraction of that 8%.
- WesleyJohnson 17y ago
  >..the 63% figure was very misleading anyway since that's the best case... Which is exactly what I took "up to 63%" to mean. I don't see that as misleading. If a drug administration company was listing off the side effects of a new over-the-counter drug and mentioned fatality rates we're on average, 2%, but failed to mention that the worst-case scenarios (where the patients were Hispanic females over the age 35) had a 80% fatality rate, would you also consider that misleading? Of course you would. So why is citing the extremes of a positive considered misleading, while citing extremes of a negative is almost expected?
Hexstream 17y ago
That's still a very long shot from "[Improving] Ruby 1.9 Performance By Up To 63%", which sounds like a global average improvement of 63% for all Ruby 1.9 programs...