Comments on: The Great Ruby Shootout (Windows Edition)

By: The Great Ruby Shootout (July 2010)

The Great Ruby Shootout (July 2010) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:12:44 +0000

[…] 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 reports on the […]

By: Antonio Cangiano

Antonio Cangiano — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 05:52:04 +0000

In reply to raggi. It wasn't meant to be a stab. I simply thought that the performance of the JVM on Linux would be better than that on Windows. I'm happy to learn that the JVM performs just as well on Windows. :)

By: raggi

raggi — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 05:36:09 +0000

The JVM has been more available on Windows than it has on Linux for a long time, I remember trying to get that stuff working on Linux many years ago and suffering all kinds of headaches. Solaris is a different story, but seriously, that caveat did seem a bit more like a random stab than based on industry reality.

Hell, you work for IBM, we used to resort to jikes on Linux back in the day…

Anyway, I had originally ignored that statement, which I’m now going to go back to doing.

By: Isaac Gouy

Isaac Gouy — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:39:20 +0000

In reply to Antonio Cangiano.

Why wouldn’t you necessarily expect JVM based implementations to shine on Windows?

Here are Java measurements on x86 Ubuntu –

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/measurements.php?lang=java

Here are the corresponding measurements –

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/demo/measurements.php?lang=java

The only big differences might be linked to threading: chameneos-redux and thread-ring.

By: Antonio Cangiano

Antonio Cangiano — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:04:46 +0000

In reply to Michael Campbell.

Why the Windows caveat? Why should this NOT be seen as impressive if you’re talking about Linux, etc.?

This would be impressive on Linux as well, Michael. However, given that it's a language that's based on the JVM, it is especially impressive on Windows where you wouldn't necessarily expect JVM based implementations to shine.

By: Michael Campbell

Michael Campbell — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:39:08 +0000

> JRuby was the fastest of the lot, which can be seen as impressive if we consider that this is Windows we are talking about after all.

Why the Windows caveat? Why should this NOT be seen as impressive if you’re talking about Linux, etc.?

By: Antonio Cangiano

Antonio Cangiano — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:42:03 +0000

In reply to Brazen. Yes, Rubinius will be included and the same hardware will be used. Stay tuned. :)

By: Antonio Cangiano

Antonio Cangiano — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:41:27 +0000

In reply to Earle Clubb. Yes.

By: Luis Lavena

Luis Lavena — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:21:10 +0000

In reply to Isaac Gouy.

Actually no.

Ruby IO implementation in Windows does a lot of stuff in C code where should be using Windows own functionality.

That defined how Ruby works, and can’t be changed.

JRuby had a hard time implementing those “specs” of Ruby, but it leveraged on Java NIO functionality, which is pretty damn fast, after all, is Java.

Anyhow, your mileage may vary on every case, the shootout is just to give a comparison, but is not reality 🙂

By: Earle Clubb

Earle Clubb — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:48:22 +0000

WRT Linux shootout: Will you include REE?