Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Experimental MacRuby Branch Is 3x Faster

Posted by kdawson on from the deep-red-cocoa dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Zen and the Art of Programming published an article about MacRuby's new experimental 0.5 branch (project blog entry here). According to the included benchmarks, Apple's version of Ruby could already, at this early stage of its development, be about three times as fast as the fastest Ruby implementation available elsewhere."

6 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. The questions remains... by dvh.tosomja · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    What is 3x faster than super uber ultra slow? Is ruby now just plain slow instead?

    1. Re:The questions remains... by raisin · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Thanks, Captain Anecdote, but you've left out even the anecdotal evidence. What's all this exclusive writing you're doing with Ruby? I've been doing all my grocery list work in Ruby too, and it's *totally* fast enough.

      I think Ruby is a fantastic language, but then I see comments like this modded up to 5 that are completely nonsensical. This makes Ruby fandom seem more like Java 1999, which makes me think twice about my positive opinion of it.

  2. Re:Ruby? by moniker127 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Because puts { "I like beans" } is 9000% better than just typing I like beans.
    In reality though, I dont know. Ruby is a language that attempts to simplify something that is already perfectly simple, and in the process of trying it really does not introduce much of anything useful.
    I'm not sure why layers upon layers of complexity if preferable to some people.

  3. Re:true, but seems unnecessary by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    if you want the current state-of-the-art in virtual machine development, you should check Sun JVM.

    Yeah, but then you run into the problem where you have to write in Java, and let's be honest -- fuck that.

    If you're going to write in something as butt-ugly as Java, you might as well write in C++, and really, if you're going to write in something as nasty as C++ for performance reasons, you might as well just go all the way and write in asm.

    Then again, there is always D to consider, if you don't want to go down that path.

  4. Re:GCC avoids high level interprocedural optimizat by glenstar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    wait... is there someone who actually understands economics on ./? Someone who understands that hundreds/thousands of hours of work on software is actually worth... GASP!... Money!? Someone who understands that maybe... just maybe... giving away the code that you spent a lot of money/time/effort on does not make sense?

    There is good reason I own the gplisshitty.com domain...

  5. Re:Ruby? by moniker127 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It was a sarcastic comment. I'm SO sorry.

    The reason ruby fails is because it combines things which need not be combined. As much as i'd love to have one language that does everything on the planet- it isnt that way- FOR A REASON. It is slow.
    It is an unnecessary layer of obfuscation that- the concept of which is apparently acceptable to today's programmers. Apparently efficiency is bullshit- everyone just wants it to be easy so they can attend a two week course and call themselves the master of it.
    It does not add any functionality you cant get from a more localized, specific focus language.

    Look - if you like ruby nothing is stopping you from using it- I sure as hell wont- but I wont stop you from masturbating either. It isnt any of my business. Do what you want.