Comments on: Ruby Scales, AND It’s Fast – If You Do It Right!

By: baash05

baash05 — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:10:00 +0000

I agree with you 100%.. I’m new to ruby, but the same arguments were made for VB on the desk.. (I’m a c/c++ guy).. The productivity for the skeleton is amazing in rapid development languages, but when the details and edge cases specific to your app come out; the time it takes to kludge together something always seem drag out development

Another thing I always question about the “I get to market faster” is why?
A pro in c++ can produce as fast as a pro in other languages. If they grab a DLL (aka gem) then poof they have the same results..

“I can create a form in seconds” Umm MFC.
“I can connect to the net in seconds” Umm Boost.
“I can add items to an array, or a hash table easy as” Umm STL.

It’s not how fast I type, or how little I type. Typing is never at issue for coders. It’s logic.

By: baash05

baash05 — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:51:00 +0000

What I find interesting is the caching paradigm (as you state) means “..never hitting the app.” I agree 100% with this.. Though by that logic are you really testing the app? If the case is, we never hit the app, how can it be an accurate test of said app/language? Could the same be said about a hard coded html page? As long as the content is cached it’s doesn’t matter how long it took “Dave” to create the page. “Dave” is the fastest programming language in the world because how fast you see prebuilt pages is limited by the server.

By: Kirk Haines

Kirk Haines — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:37:00 +0000

Yes. That is a valid approach, if one knows C and is productive in it, that can work well. Pure ruby, though, can often be a valid choice if scoping and algorithms are well considered. In addition, while implementations like Rubinius and JRuby have C extension support, portability to different Ruby implementations can’t be better than with code written in pure Ruby.

My whole point was really just that Ruby implementations of even some performance-challenging problems can be faster than the common wisdom thinks.

This post is almost a year and a half old. In that time JRuby and Rubinius have both made large strides, and Ruby 1.9.3 has some very nice advances in it, too, so I would assert that this is even more true today than it was a year and a half ago.

By: jojo

jojo — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 03:09:00 +0000

Couldn’t we just write the slow parts in C and package it as a ruby gem and be done with this argument? btw- i’m a nooby

By: AVI

AVI — Wed, 18 May 2011 11:31:00 +0000

ruby is awesome with some minor changes.

By: yard

yard — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:39:31 +0000

had a bit experience with Ruby – its fast as hell

By: telefonkatalogen

telefonkatalogen — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:27:34 +0000

How about the caching for this architecture. I am not sure it was axplained clearly enough. Can you explain this more in detail please?

By: rogerdpack

rogerdpack — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:43:24 +0000

Now if you'd said you'd tweaked rails and it was exercising the entire stack that fast, I'd be ecstatic. As it is I'm left wondering "how does your modified swiftiply know when to invalidate the cache?"

By: Isaac Gouy

Isaac Gouy — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:16:52 +0000

> Again, I wasn't attacking your results, or your methodologies or the site's reason for being.

Here are dictionary meanings for "take with a pinch (or grain) of salt":

- regard as exaggerated
- be incredulous about
- believe only part of

If Joe says take the results of the 100m sprint with a grain of salt he's suggesting that one of the competitors was cheating at that event.

Joe isn't making the obvious point that the fact they are good sprinters (or bad sprinters) doesn't imply they are good (or bad) at the marathon or scrabble or auto racing or …

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:09:24 +0000

reality is that reality is a fucking idiot in reality! go scale ureself with BASIC intuition ;)