Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: atdot.net

Stories and comments across the archive that link to atdot.net.

Comments · 9

  1. Re:Um... hello... I know it sounds wierd, but go M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting · on MS, Mozilla Clashing Over JavaScript Update

    Even if we throw in a tag to make legacy javascript viable, every legacy page out there would have to be updated - meaning all of those abandoned or hardly maintained web sites with tons of useful information are going to be broken
    <script type="text/javascript"> // "legacy" JavaScript code </script>

    <script type="application/ecmascript; version=4"> // new shiny </script>

    No need to change existing pages.

    How would you all be reacting if there was talk about re-implementing C
    There are many implementations of C

    or heaven forbid Ruby.
    Oh look, Ruby as well.
  2. Re:Great News by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1 · on Sun Backs Ruby by Hiring Main JRuby Developers
    From the TODO-list:
    Optimize
      * JIT Compile (current: experimental)
      * AOT Compile (current: experimental)

    If you search the mailing lists you will find results of experiments by Sasada showing VERY fast execution on examples using code the JIT compiler supports so far.
  3. Re:Great News by Per+Wigren · · Score: 4, Interesting · on Sun Backs Ruby by Hiring Main JRuby Developers

    The language itself isn't slow, the current interpreter is.

    The solution is YARV (Yet Another Ruby VM) which will be the official Ruby VM in v2.0. Ruby 2.0 (thanks to YARV) will have JIT and a superfast optimizer. You can get a (very buggy) pre-beta version from SVN right now. Benchmarks show that it will be about as fast as Java and .NET in most situations. Slower in some situations, faster in some.

  4. Re:Ruby is slow by Fweeky · · Score: 1 · on What's the Secret Sauce in Ruby on Rails?
    "Ruby is at least as slow as JavaScript, if not slower"

    That's a meaningless statement; JavaScript has lots of different implimentations, ranging from the so-slow-you'll-want-to-gouge-your-eyes-out iCab to the pretty blazing VM-maybe-even-JITed Opera one that seems to just keep getting better.
    " -- at least you can compile JavaScript into Java"

    Uh huh. I'll be sure to keep that in mind when my JavaScript DOM manipulations are too slow.
    "I guess what would make me happy is an insanely intelligent compiler for Ruby, that targeted the .net environment. Performance comparable to C#, developer time comparable to normal Ruby, bytecode obfuscated enough to use in commercial products.
    But that's depressing, too, because in the amount of time it would take me to learn enough about Ruby and .net to do that, not to mention the programming of that insane compiler, I could write hundreds of useful Ruby programs."

    Microsoft are sponsoring development of a Ruby implimentation for CLR. Meanwhile YARV will be giving us a Ruby 2.0 that's rather a lot faster. Also, as for "porting to C", you do know that writing C extensions for Ruby is about as easy as it gets, right? Even without using RubyInline it's simple enough that you can replace a single small method in a single class with an extension and not end up writing 10x as much support code as actual useful C. If you're lucky you might even be able to automate the conversion.
  5. Re:Ruby Apps by gregarican · · Score: 5, Informative · on Ruby On Rails Goes 1.1

    There are tools for making Ruby into self-extracting executables --> http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/index.ht ml. But for a true compiled solution that will likely be bundled with Ruby 2.0. It should include a VM --> http://www.atdot.net/yarv/. As for GUI apps there are extension libraries for Tk, Qt, Fox, WxWindows, GTK, etc.

  6. Re:Rails, great for those fed up with J2EE. by Vacindak · · Score: 1 · on Ajax On Rails

    It also needs YARV (which I believe will be the VM for Ruby 2.0) in order to be competitive. As it is, Ruby's speed (or the comparative lack thereof) is one of the biggest obstacles to corporate adoption. That and that it's hard to convince managers that the fact that only one person on their team knows Ruby isn't actually a problem.

  7. Re:Do people still write new C++ code? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1 · on Effective C++, Third Edition

    Psyco does convert Python to machine code. In a related vein, projects like are currenly attempting to make Ruby benchmark much better, in this case by using a JIT compiler. I repeat my main point: there is no reason why Ruby, Perl, Python, et. al MUST be interpreted.

  8. Re:Why ruby won't displace python. by davegaramond · · Score: 1 · on Python Moving into the Enterprise

    Let's wait for YARV to be merged with Ruby at the end of this year. Comparing current Ruby interpreter (which is AST-based) compared to Python compiler (VM/bytecode-based) is not exactly fair. Plus Python and Perl have been around longer and have undergone much more optimization tweaks.

  9. Re:Ruby by rubycodez · · Score: 1 · on Japanese Govt Boosts OSS Developments

    also, the project for the bytecode ruby machine YARV is supported by IPA.