On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Peter Rodgers defenestrated me:
>
> FYI we integrated JRuby 0.9.0 last week. Its working great and
> complements the existing choices we offer. We haven't issued a public
> release yet but I know some of our customers are excited about the
> possibility of using Ruby on N
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 00:06, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> On 7/10/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 10 July 2006 13:21, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> > > - Multiple transient collections allocated for every method hit
> >
> > Allocate? yikes. That's odd sounding.
>
> Yeah, I'm
>
> beanshell5.308
> groovy3.081
> javascript 0.185
> python0.402
> ruby18.657
> java 0.001
>
>
>
> Good lord, what's wrong with Groovy? We're only six times slower in pure
> interpreted mode (with a LOT of overhead and cruft and few
> optimizations) and they'r
On 7/10/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 10 July 2006 13:21, Charles O Nutter wrote:> - Multiple transient collections allocated for every method hitAllocate? yikes. That's odd sounding.Yeah, I'm bouncing back and forth between C and Java a lot the past week...my nomenclature
On Monday 10 July 2006 13:21, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Nick Sieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's a good bump, but like you say, still slow. Where do you suspect
> > we're losing so much performance? String manipulation and unnecessary
> > object creation?
>
> Aside from the gro
Wowsers...this is very interesting! Comments below!On 7/10/06, Peter Rodgers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Charles,Very interesting data. This inspired me to run some benchmarks. It maynot be directly relevant but I thought you might like to see this data. I just ran your benchmark [ fib(25) rub
Hi Charles,
Very interesting data. This inspired me to run some benchmarks. It may
not be directly relevant but I thought you might like to see this data.
I just ran your benchmark [ fib(25) ruby code is interpreted
'uncompiled' on 0.9.0]. I compared against an equivalent fib function
in
On 7/10/06, Nick Sieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's a good bump, but like you say, still slow. Where do you suspect we're losing so much performance? String manipulation and unnecessary object creation?Aside from the gross overhead of interpretation (which we'll never be able to eliminate wit
On 7/10/06, Charles O Nutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pure ruby in JRuby: 25.7s"Compiled" in JRuby: 8.8sPure ruby in Ruby: 2.0sPure Java: 0.014s- However, even when interpretation is removed from the equation, we're still over four times slower than Ruby. That's not good.
It's a good bump, but li
