Here here.
Sent from my iPhone 4
On 2013-02-09, at 9:20 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
> wrote:
>> Anyway, I thought I'd share these numbers, since they show we've got
>> more work to do to get JVM-based dynamic languages competitive
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
wrote:
> Anyway, I thought I'd share these numbers, since they show we've got
> more work to do to get JVM-based dynamic languages competitive with
> purpose-built dynamic language VMs. I'm not really *worried* per se,
> since raw language perf
On 02/09/2013 06:19 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> So, that new Ruby implementation I hinted at was announced this week.
> It's called Topaz, and it's based on the RPython/PyPy toolchain.
>
> It's still very early days, of course, since the vast majority of Ruby
> core has not been implemented
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Thomas Wuerthinger
wrote:
> Do you also have startup performance metrics - I assume the numbers below
> are about peak performance?
It seems to warm up very quickly; there's sometimes 2x slower perf on
the first iteration, but it rapidly settles. Overall startup ti
Do you also have startup performance metrics - I assume the numbers below are
about peak performance?
What is the approximate % of language feature completeness of Topaz and do you
think this aspect is relevant when comparing performance?
Thanks, thomas
Charles Oliver Nutter hat geschrieben
So, that new Ruby implementation I hinted at was announced this week.
It's called Topaz, and it's based on the RPython/PyPy toolchain.
It's still very early days, of course, since the vast majority of Ruby
core has not been implemented yet. But for the benchmarks it can run,
it usually beats JRuby
