From: Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-03-31T11:53:29+09:00
Subject: Re: Poor efficency of Ruby...


In data 3/31/2005, "JZ" <spamerom@niet.com> ha scritto:

>Dnia Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:54:23 +0900, Joe Van Dyk napisa�(a):
>
>>> As I can see, Rails is *not* an application server, as someone mentioned.
>>> It is a couple of Ruby scripts and modules working together. Am I right?
>>>
>>
>> That's correct.
>
>Now I understand! It may be a reason why any Python (or Java) application
>server will be faster than Ruby ever be. Both use precompiled code and do
>not need to parse source code for every request. Even PHP with its Zend
>eaccelerator will be faster, because it doesn't need to parse over and over
>again the same source files.
>
>I think Ruby needs similar solution. If not bytecode (like Java and Python
>use), so maybe accelerator like Zend for PHP? Ruby and Rails works like PHP
>without accelerator. It has to parse all his libraries over and over again
>for every request. So I can conclude that for bigger code all might be
>slowing down... So I understand why using pure CGI for Rails is useless.
>FCGI can help, mod_ruby can help more (I guess), but nothing more.

The next version of ruby is meant to be bytecode-interpreted;
there was in fact a short thread about this just today.

The Rails issues you have encountered are also, I believe,
well described on the Rails web page and their mailing list
archives. In all benevolence: a little research (and perhaps
consideration in phrasing your questions) will go a long way.

>> However, Ruby comes with a web server called Webrick.  script/server
>> starts that web server.
>
>Yes, but Apache is much more powerfull. Those all light embeded httpd
>servers included in Ruby (or Python) can be usefull only for testing, not
>heavy loaded production sites.
>
>--
>JZ

Welcome to ruby!

E