| > my point with every message is that excessive memory allocation is a performance killer 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. |