On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:09:05 +0200 Jonathan Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cheers, > > > > > Yes, it is incredibly slow. Here's some benchmarks showing python is > > significantly faster in everything but startup time. Even the author > > of ruby says ruby is slow, and its planned to make it a bytecode compiled > > language like everyone else in ruby 2. > > > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=python > > > > Benchmarks are fine but you should always check your specific setting > and application. Like I said, I did. Rails is over 3 times slower than django for some stuff, and ruby in general is far slower for EVERY single script I have ever compared with. > The author does not say that Ruby is slow Yes he does. Unlike the legions of mindless rails drones, Matz doesn't try to pretend ruby is perfect. Here's a slide from his presentation talking about what sucks about ruby: http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/rc2003/mgp00004.html > Because of abstraction and verboseness. Java operates at a higher > abstraction level than C which make programmers more productive at the > cost of raw speed. The same argument can be made for Ruby vs. Java or > Ruby vs. PHP. But the same argument cannot be made about ruby vs python, perl or pike. They are all high level, dynamic languages that let you do things quickly. Compare the lines of code in the linked benchmarks, notice how ruby isn't any quicker to write code in, and it is much slower. > We have also very complicated dynamic pages that cannot be cached in one > piece. But fragment caching makes it very easy to cache parts of the page. The part that takes all the time is the part that can't be cached. Caching trivial stuff like the menu doesn't help. If ruby is fast enough for your needs that's fine, but don't lie to people and try to pretend that ruby is fast, or that trading off its speed vs other scripting languages buys you anything. > Buying 3 times the servers is an option if you pay less for the hardware > than for the developer time. In our case this is true. True in my case too, but ruby doesn't save you any time over perl or python, so its just paying 3 times as much for servers, and getting no benefit in return. > I doubt that there is a more productive web framework in Perl or Java, > especially Java. Django may be another thing but I like to program im > Ruby and not in Python. From my experiences I can say that Djano is very > productive but not as productive as Rails. Catalyst in perl, django in python, and trails in java are all comparable. Trails is a little less productive than the rest because java is more verbose and static, but catalyst and django are just as fast to work with as rails, and both perform better. Catalyst is also significantly more flexible. And for alot of the really simple "apps" that rails is used for, maypole is actually faster to get stuff done in than rails. > I think that the discussion is stuck at this point as you claim one > thing and I another and the real arguments are gone. I think you have been brainwashed by the hype, and don't want to admit that perhaps other solutions are just as productive as rails, without the crappy speed. Adam
