This benchmark was done against mono 2.4.4 which is significantly old. I
guess 2.6 shouldn't bring much performance
improvements but the upcoming 2.8 release with the new GC can make huge
differences specially on GC bound
benchmarks such as binary_trees.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Nathan Stults
<nathan_stu...@hsihealth.com>wrote:
> Yeah, but who wants to **deploy** Ruby code on Windows? Develop, sure…but
> then performance doesn’t matter. If IronRuby is aiming only to be a windows
> centric technology, I can’t imagine what future it really has in store for
> it, that is, standing alone on its own two feet as a Ruby implementation.
> Integrated into .NET software is a different story irrelevant to the
> benchmarks being discussed, but I don’t think the benchmarks are misleading
> as far as the Ruby community at large is concerned, because for that group,
> I don’t imagine Windows is a viable deployment target ( why would it be?) so
> benchmarking on Linux is probably the most realistic kind of benchmarking
> you can do when comparing ruby interpreters for that particular audience. I
> suppose that is one of the things that makes the IronRuby project an enigma
> to me – in my mind Ruby is a finger pointing to Linux, so it seems an odd
> one for Microsoft to extend.
>
>
>
> *From:* ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:
> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *Orion Edwards
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:59 PM
> *To:* ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ironruby-core] Will the performance catch up be next
> milestone?
>
>
>
> It's probably not intentional but his benchmark graphs are misleading.
>
>
>
> Because Mono is not nearly as fast or as mature as Microsoft's .NET, the
> performance of IronRuby on mono is much worse. Unfortunately all his graphs
> show Mono performance only, which makes IronRuby appear very slow.
>
>
>
> If you look at the numbers directly (there is a table further down
> comparing IronRuby on mono vs IronRuby on .net), IronRuby is much much
> faster. It appears to me that IronRuby on windows (.NET) is faster than MRI
> 1.9.2 ("regular" ruby) on windows!
>
>
>
> It's still not as fast as MRI 1.9.2 on linux, but it's not that far behind
> either.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Ray Linn <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>
> IBM Engineer completed a performance benchmark for rubys, seems ir does
> not well done in the performance.
>
>
> http://programmingzen.com/2010/07/19/the-great-ruby-shootout-july-2010/
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
