On 29/07/2010, at 4:40 PM, Nathan Stults wrote: > Yeah, but who wants to *deploy* Ruby code on Windows?
Personally, I wouldn't run a public facing internet site on windows, but that's only because I spent 2 years developing rails apps on FreeBSD for another company and picked up a lot of skills from it. Otherwise, I'd run a windows server. I also know a lot of people who run windows servers. From what I've seen the penetration of linux servers inside small-to-medium companies here is approaching 0%. IronRuby (particularly if it ever gets good userfriendly IIS integration) means I can develop a rails app and get the local microsoft sysadmin to deploy it in a couple of clicks. > Develop, sure…but then performance doesn’t matter. Really? I become rather unhappy if I'm having to dev something where the performance sucks (compiling C++ apps really really gets my goat). This is the primary reason why I continually wish they'd improve the IronRuby startup perf. **scalability** doesn't matter for development, but scalability and performance are two different things, and the benchmark certainly doesn't measure scalability > 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?) Umm... Why wouldn't it be? Windows server pricing is actually not too bad, so long as you stay away from the clusterf*** that is SQL server (it's great tech but the licensing and pricing are crazy). Again, I've seen plenty of windows servers run by company sysadmins and I'd love to be able to deploy some rails apps onto them (MRI is worse than terrible for deploying to IIS, so again, IronRuby could stand to do really well). You could argue that the "target audience" for that article was 23 year olds creating the next FaceTube because it was posted to Hacker News, however Antonio Cangiano is an Evangelist for IBM. I wouldn't equate "IBM" with internet startups either... It seemed like the target audience was simply "people who are interested in ruby performance".... > 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. I agree with your point of view, however I draw the opposite conclusion. Looking at MRI and JRuby, Linux (or some BSD/solaris/etc) really is the go-to platform if you want to develop a ruby application. The performance of MRI in particular is clearly a lot better on *nix. This is then coupled with the fact that Rails is an outstanding platform for getting web apps up and running, and web apps are pretty hot these days. From that point of view, it makes perfect sense for Microsoft to build IronRuby as a top notch Ruby implementation for windows. If they pull this off, and couple it with some other windows integration type stuff (an IIS admin plugin to administer rails sites would be awesome) then in theory two things can happen: 1) People that were familiar with windows but are considering switching away because of a ruby/rails app might stay on windows (and then, pay microsoft for windows server and maybe even SQL server eventually) 2) If they do a REALLY good job, people running rails apps on linux might switch to windows! I'd love to see #2 happen, but unfortunately it's a long way off. The IronRuby team seems to be really awesome, but there's only like 3 of you, right? :-( > > 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
