2010/2/23 J=F6rg W Mittag
<JoergWMittag+Ruby / googlemail.com<JoergWMittag%2BRuby / googlemail.com>
>

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> jwm
>
> Hi,

"I have *never* seen" Maybe you didn't look enough. Anyway, I think there
are plenty of benchmarks ...

Test yourself and you'll see.
I think it's most of the time faster or equal in Ruby 1.9. There is a reaso=
n
for this speed improvement, I let you search it.

You mention usual Antonio Cangiano Benchmarks:
http://antoniocangiano.com/2007/02/19/ruby-implementations-shootout-ruby-vs=
-yarv-vs-jruby-vs-gardens-point-ruby-net-vs-rubinius-vs-cardinal/

Well, there is a long time I keep traces of these benchmarks:

MBP =3D> MacBookPro, 2x2.26GHz, 2Go

P =3D> patchlevel
R =3D> revision
T =3D> trunk
Time Computer OS 32/64bit RubyVersion
0.684  MBP  Mac  64  1.9.2  2010-01-14  T  26319
0.836  MBP  Lin  32  1.9.2  2009-07-18  T  24186
0.899  MBP  Mac  32  1.9.2  2009-11-04  T  25635
1.719  MBP  Win  32  1.9.2  2009-07-18
1.850  MBP  Mac  32  1.8.6  2008-08-11  P  287
2.000  MBP  Mac  32  1.8.7  2009-12-24  P  248
2.406  MBP  Win  32  1.9.1  2009-01-30  R  21907
2.937  MBP  Win  32  1.8.6  2007-09-24  P  111

If that is not clear ...
All 1.9.2 are faster(more than 2 times here). The only exception is probabl=
y
due to better implementation of 1.8 on Mac than Windows (the 1.9.1 is
probably an early version too).

Regards,

B.D.