Comments on: Benchmarking MacRuby 0.6 https://programmingzen.com/benchmarking-macruby-0-6/ Meditations on programming, startups, and technology Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:13:08 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: The Great Ruby Shootout (July 2010) https://programmingzen.com/benchmarking-macruby-0-6/#comment-13383 Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:13:08 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/?p=1168#comment-13383 […] Ruby implementations by testing them against a series of synthetic benchmarks. Recently I ran Mac and Windows shootouts as well, which tested a handful of implementations. However this article […]

]]> By: The Great Ruby Shootout (Windows Edition) https://programmingzen.com/benchmarking-macruby-0-6/#comment-10297 Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:00:46 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/?p=1168#comment-10297 […] shootout on Windows that I recently conducted. You can find the Mac edition, published last month, here. I was planning to have this one ready much sooner, but a couple of serious events in personal life […]

]]> By: roger https://programmingzen.com/benchmarking-macruby-0-6/#comment-9436 Fri, 28 May 2010 22:52:09 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/?p=1168#comment-9436 I believe all the code he used were from the RBS http://github.com/acangiano/ruby-benchmark-suite

]]> By: Shimon Amit https://programmingzen.com/benchmarking-macruby-0-6/#comment-9292 Mon, 17 May 2010 18:55:22 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/?p=1168#comment-9292 In reply to Antonio Cangiano.

I can’t wait!

]]> By: r kumar https://programmingzen.com/benchmarking-macruby-0-6/#comment-9286 Mon, 17 May 2010 07:07:39 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/?p=1168#comment-9286 Any links to samples created using macruby ?

Thanks.

]]> By: Antonio Cangiano https://programmingzen.com/benchmarking-macruby-0-6/#comment-9271 Sun, 16 May 2010 17:16:19 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/?p=1168#comment-9271 In reply to Fred.

gcc version 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5659)

Both Ruby versions were 32bit, while MacRuby was 64bit only. This favors MacRuby when it comes to run time, but penalizes it in terms of memory usage.

I went with this combination, because it’s what most people would use on Mac OS X.

I thought I indicated the architecture in my post, but I apparently forgot to. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify that.

]]> By: Fred https://programmingzen.com/benchmarking-macruby-0-6/#comment-9270 Sun, 16 May 2010 16:21:09 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/?p=1168#comment-9270 How were they compiled?

Are they all 32bit or 64bit?

Which GCC Version for each ruby version? gcc4.4? gcc4.1?

I believe it matters on the memory usage.

]]> By: Antonio Cangiano https://programmingzen.com/benchmarking-macruby-0-6/#comment-9269 Sun, 16 May 2010 15:02:38 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/?p=1168#comment-9269 In reply to Joshua.

Joshua, my upcoming Linux shootout will include:

  • Ruby 1.8.7
  • Ruby 1.9.2
  • Ruby Enterprise Edition
  • JRuby 1.5
  • Rubinius 1.0
  • MagLev
]]> By: Joshua https://programmingzen.com/benchmarking-macruby-0-6/#comment-9268 Sun, 16 May 2010 14:56:37 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/?p=1168#comment-9268 Hi, thanks for the comparison.
Are there any chances of including JRuby 1.5 and Rubinius 1.0 to the list?

]]> By: Antonio Cangiano https://programmingzen.com/benchmarking-macruby-0-6/#comment-9267 Sun, 16 May 2010 13:12:15 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/?p=1168#comment-9267 In reply to Bil Kleb.

Hi Bil,

I changed the tables so as to show three decimal places. This should be good enough. You may also want to download and play with the CSV files at the bottom of the article.

]]>