From: Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...>
Date: 2007-06-01T18:53:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby & OCaml (was Re: Underscore)

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 08:30:13PM +0900, Jon Harrop wrote:
> Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
> > However, on Ruby 1.9, still under development and expected to be released
> > by xmas 2007:
> > 
> > $ ruby19 -v bm.rb
> > ruby 1.9.0 (2007-02-07 patchlevel 0) [i686-linux]
> >                 user     system      total        real
> > each        0.230000   0.000000   0.230000 (  0.228493)
> > inject      0.310000   0.000000   0.310000 (  0.313735)
> > 
> > making it comparable to OCaml's bytecode, which is hardly surprising since
> > they are both stack machines with threaded code/computed gotos.
> 
> Yes. Is there a native-code compiler for Ruby in the works? Does the .NET
> implementation give much better performance?

Nothing has been heard about a native code compiler (Ruby makes it challenging
for a number of reasons).

AFAIK at this point in time the alternative implementations are all slower or
a bit faster at best than the standard interpreter.

Microsoft's IronRuby hasn't been released yet, so nothing is known about its
performance or the degree of compatibility with Ruby 1.8.  The most recent
IronPython vs. CPython benchmark I've found[1] reveals that the former is not
faster than the latter. If IronRuby performs similarly, it might come
relatively close to Ruby 1.9 (formerly known as YARV), but it doesn't look
like it will improve significantly on it.

[1]
http://lists.ironpython.com/pipermail/users-ironpython.com/2007-April/004773.html
-- 
Mauricio Fernandez  -   http://eigenclass.org   -  singular Ruby