|
|
|
|
|
|
by CyberDildonics
1925 days ago
|
|
|
You get so worked up but my point with every message is that excessive memory allocation is a performance killer. Part of the reason is cache misses which you went into here. For all your rabbit holes and straying off topic, it's pretty clear you know a lot more about this than chriseaton. Ruby runs 50x to 100x slower than native software, let alone well optimized native software. It is not a context that makes sense when talking about absolute performance. > despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, The overwhelming evidence is that tiny memory allocations will always carry more overhead than operating on the data they contain. Excessive memory allocations imply small memory allocations and small memory allocations will have overhead that outweighs their contents. This actually is about as universal on modern CPUs as you can get. This is why allocating a few bytes at a time in a loop dominates performance, which all I've really been saying. > going so far as to put false words in my mouth in order to defend your point of view. Please stop doing that. Relax, you might learn something |
|
|
Yes, it was clear that that was what you were saying, despite clear and convincing evidence that it's true in some contexts and false in others.
> For all your rabbit holes and straying off topic, it's pretty clear you know a lot more about this than chriseaton.
chrisseaton knows more about this topic than I ever will. You, by contrast, evidently don't know enough about it to understand why the things we were bringing up were relevant, miscategorizing them as "rabbit holes and straying off topic".
> Ruby runs 50x to 100x slower than native software, let alone well optimized native software. It is not a context that makes sense when talking about absolute performance.
As anyone who follows the links provided can see, some performance-critical benchmark libraries built with chrisseaton's TruffleRuby run about 1.1× slower than alternatives written in native C, although performance on larger programs is, so far, less impressive. Even the mainstream Ruby implementation MRI is typically only about 30× slower. It's true that ten years ago Ruby had performance overhead of 50× to 100×.
> Relax, you might learn something
Oh, I've learned a lot from this thread. But it wasn't by reading the GPT-2-generated Eliza-bot rants posted under the name "CyberDildonics" with no understanding of the issues; it was by reading chrisseaton's dissertation, writing and running microbenchmarks, and carefully disassembling compiler output.