From: Ryan Davis Date: 2012-07-03T19:29:47+09:00 Subject: Re: ruby performance On Jul 3, 2012, at 01:47 , Lars Haugseth wrote: > On 07/03/2012 03:34 AM, botp wrote: >> >> $ for x in "ruby ruby1.rb" "ruby ruby2.rb" "perl perl1.pl"; do echo >> $x; time $x;echo ; done > > Note that the overhead for starting up and exiting the interpreter has an impact on your results when you benchmark like that. > > $ time for i in {0..100}; do ruby -e ''; done > > real 0m2.395s > user 0m1.600s > sys 0m0.628s > > $ time for i in {0..100}; do perl -e ''; done > > real 0m0.526s > user 0m0.176s > sys 0m0.300s > > (Ruby 1.9.3, Perl 5.14.2.) Oh my god... are you guys still mentarbating over this crap? First off... compare apples to apples. ruby 1.9 loads rubygems by default. 4605 % time for i in {0..100}; do ruby19 -e ''; done real 0m3.089s user 0m2.066s sys 0m0.663s 4606 % time for i in {0..100}; do ruby19 --disable-gems -e ''; done real 0m1.414s user 0m0.771s sys 0m0.438s Second. Be glad you're not running python or anything on the jvm (compare `time gem list` vs `time jgem list`): 4604 % time for i in {0..100}; do python -c ''; done real 0m14.186s user 0m11.212s sys 0m1.717s Third... WHO CARES?!?!? This is all bullshit comparisons for bullshit reasons. You don't use ruby for speed of runtime. You use it because you'll be done AND have profiled and optimized the bottlenecks before they're done. You use it because it's a great language to develop in. You use it to GET STUFF DONE and AVOID THESE THREADS.