From: Richard Conroy <richard.conroy@...>
Date: 2007-09-28T03:08:42+09:00
Subject: Re: question on bottleneck of ruby

On 9/27/07, Markus Schirp <mbj@seonic.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:59:36 +0900
> "Richard Conroy" <richard.conroy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Basically, Ruby is hard to optimise for. It's super dynamic nature
> > (Open Classes) mean that traditional compiler/interpreter tricks
> > cannot be used.
> >
>
> So why not add a "class freeze method", so that these traditional
> compiler/interpreter tricks can be used?

IIRC you can set how open your classes are at runtime. Though
we *like* the fact that Ruby classes are open at runtime. Its not
a development feature by any means - Rails makes huge use of
this.

Interpreter writers know this and design accordingly. So they use
non-traditional tricks instead.

Mostly I just don't see Ruby performance as a significant issue.
Memory management and GC would be higher on my priority list,
and are arguably easier to solve anyway.

JRuby now adds another option for dropping down to system
language performance for specific cases. .NET users will get
similar treatment eventually, and yet another system language
option will be added to the mix (and .NET users will get a
proper scripting option on the CLR as well ;-P   )

The only area where I have noticed very poor Ruby performance
is in REXML. Though REXML is very much an entry-level option,
and the authors themselves would redirect you to alternatives if
your needs are greater. My observations were probably multiplied
by my absolutely rubbish XML skills too....