• Martin Tschierschke (4/4) Jun 13 2018 The compilation is done by using the C compiler in the background.
• bauss (6/7) Jun 13 2018 I would say yes. Especially if we're talking just replacing the C
• Anton Fediushin (8/13) Jun 13 2018 Good news for Ruby community, I guess. IIRC jRuby had JIT for a
• bauss (2/4) Jun 13 2018 Partially agrees, BUT it's still somewhat popular with rails.
• Ecstatic Coder (35/40) Jun 23 2018 Wrong strategy...

Martin Tschierschke <mt smartdolphin.de> writes:

The compilation is done by using the C compiler in the background.

https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2018/05/31/ruby-2-6-0-preview2-released/

Could D be an better choice for that purpose?


Any comment?

bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:

On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 08:21:45 UTC, Martin Tschierschke 
wrote:
 Could D be an better choice for that purpose?

I would say yes. Especially if we're talking just replacing the C 
code with D (using betterC.)

See: 
https://dlang.org/blog/2018/06/11/dasbetterc-converting-make-c-to-d/

Anton Fediushin <fediushin.anton yandex.ru> writes:

On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 08:21:45 UTC, Martin Tschierschke 
wrote:
 The compilation is done by using the C compiler in the 
 background.

 https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2018/05/31/ruby-2-6-0-preview2-released/

 Could D be an better choice for that purpose?


 Any comment?

Good news for Ruby community, I guess. IIRC jRuby had JIT for a 
while know and was beating the reference implementation in almost 
every test. I wonder how is it now?

Too bad they released it now and not, you know, five to seven 
years ago when ruby was really popular.

D is always a better choice. Somebody, tell them about DasBetterC.

bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:

On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 10:07:03 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote:
 Too bad they released it now and not, you know, five to seven 
 years ago when ruby was really popular.

Partially agrees, BUT it's still somewhat popular with rails.

Ecstatic Coder <ecstatic.coder gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 08:21:45 UTC, Martin Tschierschke 
wrote:
 The compilation is done by using the C compiler in the 
 background.

 https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2018/05/31/ruby-2-6-0-preview2-released/

 Could D be an better choice for that purpose?


 Any comment?

Wrong strategy...

https://blog.codeship.com/an-introduction-to-crystal-fast-as-c-slick-as-ruby/

"This is a naive Fibonacci implementation for Crystal (it’s also 
valid Ruby):


def fib(n)
   if n <= 1
     1
   else
     fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2)
   end
end

puts fib(42)

Let’s run it and see how long it takes!

time crystal fib.cr
433494437
crystal fib.cr  2.45s user 0.33s system 98% cpu 2.833 total

Since this is also valid Ruby, let’s run it with Ruby this time

time ruby fib.cr
433494437
ruby fib.cr  38.49s user 0.12s system 99% cpu 38.718 total

Crystal took 2.833 seconds to complete. Ruby took 38.718 seconds 
to complete. Pretty cool. We get 20x performance for free. What 
if we compile our program with optimizations turned on?

crystal build --release fib.cr

time ./fib
433494437
./fib  1.11s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 1.113 total

crystal-vs-ruby-benchmark

1.113 seconds. Now we’re nearly 35 times faster than Ruby."

Obviously this benchmark will have to be updated, but I don't 
know how the Ruby developer will manage to beat Crystal with 
their JIT compilation...