Sign in / up

back to article 'Freakishly fast' Ruby coming to the Mac

Mac developers intrigued by Ruby's ease of use and simple maintainability but deterred by its turgid performance will be happy to hear that MacRuby 0.5 - aka its "experimental branch" - is remarkably snappy. Exactly how snappy is remarkably snappy? A suite of low-level benchmark tests recently performed by Antonio Cangiano of …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Torben Mogensen

    Only fast compared to Ruby

    It is not that hard to be fast compared to the standard implementation of Ruby, as this is dog slow. If you want to call it "freakisly fast", it should at least run as fast as Java or F#.

    0 0
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fast but scalable?

    Sorry, but we've seen that Ruby doesn't scale. Not to mention that if you're working with a legacy database, you're in for a lot of work. Ruby's view is that the database merely persists their objects and has to follow their naming convention.

    0 0
  3. captain kangaroo
    Thumb Up

    First time in ages

    I've read an article that i do not understand one sentence of...

    But it's ok.. Don't do a BBC on me and dumb it down...

    0 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Typical Ruby bashing....

    We have *not* seen that Ruby doesn't scale. That meme is pure BS.

    What we have seen is Twitter struggling to cope with it's stellar growth rate. Frankly given their growth I'm amazed that they've only had 80 hours of downtime in the last year - that's remarkable. Twitter is the one example that's trotted out time and time again about how Ruby doesn't scale; I don't think I've heard of a single other example.

    Several other Rails sites cope with fairly heavy traffic such as the 37signals sites and funnyordie.com.

    Ruby as a language has no inbuilt support for databases. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are instead parroting criticisms about Rails' ActiveRecord ORM library. Unfortunately that criticism is largely ignorant - yes, there are naming conventions, but they can be overridden with configuration info to comply with just about any legacy database system. There's also a few other ORMs to choose from.

    The "official" Ruby interpreters have indeed been rather slow when compared with most other dynamic languages. This new MacRuby 0.5 is much faster, and has not yet been optimised. It is too early to judge how it will compare with other languages like Perl or Python.

    Whilst performance may be important, there is more to choosing a language than execution speed. Personally I find that I'm much more productive using Ruby which I only get to play with occasionally than Perl or JavaScript, the two languages I code in every day.

    0 0
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    re: Fast but scalable?

    So wrong in so many ways.

    First you mean Rails when you say Ruby.

    Then you say Ruby (but mean Rails) has to follow naming conventions when persisting objects - it default to this, but can quite happily be mapped to other database schemas (as can any other object relational mapper such as Hibernate).

    So other than not understanding what the technology is or what it can do - great comment!

    0 0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like