Hacker News Reader

Comment by cageface | Hacker News Reader

JRuby is fast for a Ruby implementation, but it's still far, far slower than Scala or Java itself.

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all...

A lot of the pain a site like Twitter will have comes from GC (they wrote their own Ruby GC), and JRuby has a much better garbage collector over MRI and probably better than Twitter's.

It seems like something like Twitter would benefit lots from a good generational GC. Any more info on the one they wrote and how it differs from the built-in one? I'd love to learn more.

I do get that a dynamic language like Ruby will always be slower than a language like Java, which has primitives and where many things, including static method calls, are solved at compile time.

But citing the Alioth.Debian benchmarks? Really?

Dude, take a look at the source-code of those benchmarks sometimes -- they are completely useless ;)

If you want a fast dynamic language, take a look at Lua. It's surprisingly fast, especially LuaJIT, and pretty straight forward (almost boring really). The main downside is that there isn't the breadth of community around it.

Lua's threading is just as broken as Python or Ruby. Maybe even more so.

They show the right order-of-magnitude differences. Taking them more seriously than that is a mistake.

That JRuby :: Scala URL shows an interquartile range from 6x to 31x so which order-of-magnitude were you going to pick? ;-)

it's still slower than ruby 1.9 is it not? I was under the impression the current perf hierarchy was 1.9.2p290 w / gc cleanup patch (ree inspired) > jruby > 1.8.7 (ree) > all the other rubies?

Dude, "completely useless" is just "completely useless" name calling.

Say what you think is wrong with the source-code of particular programs.

They're as useful as the code is well written for each language.

You think the Ruby code could be faster, and thus the comparison is skewed? Go ahead and help everyone understand by improving it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com