Running the snippets above, I got the following results: Ruby 1.8.6: 158.869sĮhm, hold on a second! Did Ruby just go from 159 seconds down to 12? Koichi Sasada, do you have an Amazon Wishlist? I was expecting a decent improvement, as I’ve been playing with 1.9 every now and then for a long time – so I knew it was faster – but I was blown away when I timed the latest version from trunk (even if it’s a really silly example that’s being tested). At least for now, there is no reasonable evidence to conclude that Ruby 1.9 – which will be released for this coming Christmas – will actually be faster than Python 2.5.1 in the majority of situations, but hear me out and check out these very surprising results. It’s a single test (which is obviously not a real world example, as you would use an iterative version of the function if it were), and unlike with real programs, it doesn’t stress many features of the language. The test was run on Mac OS X 10.5 with my MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz and 2 GB of memory). I ran a recursive Fibonacci function, just to stress test a bit of recursion and method calling, and while I was at it, I decided to compare it with Python too. When I saw the results though, my jaw dropped. It was one of those tests that you do at 3 AM in an irb session when you feel you’ve made your daily peace with your actual workload for the night.
I wasn’t planning to make a post about it. Just out of curiosity I decided to run a single benchmark (you can hardly call it that) to see how Ruby 1.9 had improved over the current stable version (1.8.6). Well, it looks like with Ruby 1.9, it’ll be payback time.
We Rubyists have been teased for a long time, due to the slowness of the main Ruby interpreter. Alright the title of this post is a tad sensational sounding, I know, and it’s in part aimed at messing with my many Pythonista friends.
0 kommentar(er)
