Re: Performance of Ruby 1.9 vs. Ruby 1.8 (was: Speed sprint)

< :the previous in number ^ :the list in numerical order > :the next in number P :the previous (in thread) N :the next (in thread) |<:the top of this thread >|:the next thread ^ :the parent (reply-to) _:the child (an article replying to this) >:the elder article having the same parent <:the youger article having the same parent ---:split window and show thread lists | :split window (vertically) and show thread lists ~ :close the thread frame .:the index ..:the index of indices

On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:50 AM, J=F6rg W Mittag wrote:

> Alexander Jesner wrote:
>> On 02/22/2010 20:30, Benedikt M=FCller wrote:
>>> Ruby is not the fastest interpreted language out there.
>> If you have not already done so, switch to Ruby 1.9.
>=20
> I have seen this claim that Ruby 1.9 is somehow faster than Ruby 1.8
> repeated over and over again, but I have *never* seen any credible
> evidence for that, neither in my own benchmarks nor in Antonio
> Cangiano's (or any other, for that matter). Does anyone have any
> evidence that this is actually the case? I would be very interested in
> that.

Are you looking at the same benchmarks and charts that I am?

http://antoniocangiano.com/category/ruby-benchmark-suite/

This clearly shows that 1.9.1 is consistently and measurably faster than =
1.8 in nearly every benchmark. My own experience proves this out too.=20

I am a recent convert to 1.9.1 after I discovered that it ran *all* of =
my scripts at least 50% faster than 1.8.7. Between 1.9.1 and JRuby I am =
loving my ruby performance lately. I am also tracking Rubinius closely; =
it is very fast but its performance is less consistent than MRI and =
JRuby so far.

cr