[coldtea]

>First of all "Ruby" is not an implementation.

Sure, but I was obviously reffering to MRI. Not to mention that, back in my day, Ruby WAS an implementation.

>But there's a vast gap between being able to, and for performance numbers based on 45% of RubySpec to mean anything about what we can expect to see in terms of performance of this particular implementation.

Sure I agree.

>As someone else pointed out: Several Ruby implementation started out with impressive numbers on some subset of the language. Then they slowed down more and more as code was added to handle the corner cases of the language.

I wonder then, if all that talent is not better served by implementing a BETTER version of the core 50% or 70% Ruby language as a new language, getting rid of edge cases and garbage. Perhaps add some good stuff from Python in for good measure.

Matter of fact, didn't Matz do something like that, with an embedded-oriented Ruby like language recently?

[dragonwriter]

> I wonder then, if all that talent is not better served by implementing a BETTER version of the core 50% or 70% Ruby language as a new language, getting rid of edge cases and garbage.

No, if you want languages that are less expressive but faster, there are plenty of options available. The thing is, MRI itself keeps getting faster implementing the whole of Ruby. The fact that new Ruby implementations that implement the easiest bits first tend to start out much faster than the mainline interpreter on code that only uses those most-straightforward-to-implement bits but then tends to converge closer to the speed of the mainline interpreter as it the implementation gets more complete doesn't mean that it would be better to make a new language. Much of the experience of those alternative interpreters is relevant to making improvements in the mainline interpreter that speed up, or otherwise improve, "complete" Ruby (including times when the alternative interpreter becomes the mainline interpreter, as occurred with YARV, which was an alternative interpreter before it became the mainline interpreter in 1.9.)

> Matter of fact, didn't Matz do something like that, with an embedded-oriented Ruby like language recently?

If you are referring to mruby, that's an embedded-oriented Ruby implementation, not a Ruby-like language.

[vidarh]

Losing too much of Ruby would make it pointless. But there are certainly edge cases that we could lose readily and not care very much.

When was the last time you saw anyone redefine operators on Fixnum for a good reason, for example?

My pet peeve is small things like freezing many of the base classes by default, for example. As well as a "meta programming module" in the standard library that'd gather up as much as possible of what people (ab)use eval() for today in specific, narrowly tailored methods that implementations could provide specialised versions of. A limited "general purpose" eval() that is not allowed to modify the class hierarchy would be another good thing - anything that'd combine to allow implementations to defer type and method cache guards and invalidations as long as possible would make it far easier to improve performance, with very little impact on most developers.

[dragonwriter]

> When was the last time you saw anyone redefine operators on Fixnum for a good reason, for example?

Special-case restrictions like the ones that would be necessary to prevent this is increasing, not decreasing, the overall complexity of the language, even if it decreases the complexity of the implementation. That makes it harder to keep a mental grasp on the language.

> As well as a "meta programming module" in the standard library that'd gather up as much as possible of what people (ab)use eval() for today in specific, narrowly tailored methods that implementations could provide specialised versions of.

Rather than such a module, that's actually been the normal evolution of the core is to include, in the appropriate places (usually as methods on Object, Module, or Class) methods that capture the common use cases of eval. But those uses evolve, and removing general purpose eval would both limit the flexibility of the language and limit the signal that eval usage patterns provide for the future development of the language.

> A limited "general purpose" eval() that is not allowed to modify the class hierarchy would be another good thing

An eval that interprets a different language that is almost like the Ruby that the implementation it is hosted in evaluates would be yet another layer of complexity in the language.

> A limited "general purpose" eval() that is not allowed to modify the class hierarchy would be another good thing - anything that'd combine to allow implementations to defer type and method cache guards and invalidations as long as possible would make it far easier to improve performance, with very little impact on most developers.

While the developers that directly use the impacted features might be a small number, the developers that use software that uses the impacted features under the hood would be much bigger.

There are plenty of languages that aim to performant and the cost of expressiveness. There's no reason for Ruby to change to compete in that space.

[coldtea]

>No, if you want languages that are less expressive but faster, there are plenty of options available.

I'm not sure there are in the style we're talking about. Only Lua comes to mind. Maybe I'd add Julia there too.

A modern Python/Ruby replacement, built for speed and with a large-ish community would be nice to see. Even with static inferred typing.

It's not like we can't have new languages anymore. After all both Ruby/Python came out of nowhere around 1992-4, a time where there was no modern web and even less resources to grow a language.

[dragonwriter]

> A modern Python/Ruby replacement, built for speed and with a large-ish community would be nice to see.

Both Python and Ruby have performance as main areas of focus for improvement, having largely met their goals in terms of expressiveness. So, to a large extent, that's what each new version of Python and Ruby already is.

If you mean "built for speed first", then there are plenty of those (though they aren't really expressly aimed as Python/Ruby replacements, because "built for speed first" isn't Python or Ruby's focus, so something built that way isn't really targetting Python or Ruby, even though it may be targeting some subset of the places where Python and Ruby are currently applied.)

Many new languages fit this niche (langauges designed with performance as a key focus that target some subset of the use cases of Python/Ruby.) But for the most part, they aren't very Python/Ruby-like, because the difference in goals leads to much bigger changes than slicing off features of Python/Ruby.

> It's not like we can't have new languages anymore.

No, its like we have lots of new languages, as well as lots of existing languages, and lots of use for improved versions of existing languages, so it doesn't make a lot of sense for people who aren't the people involved to say that people currently working on new Ruby implementations should stop working on them and instead work on new "Ruby-like" languages with reduced features that fit niches that aren't what Ruby is targetted at, but are what other existing and new languages are already targetted at.

Both because there are plenty of people already working on what you want, and because "people should stop working on what is important to them on spend their time working on what is important to me" is a generally silly when you aren't paying the people in question for their time/effort.

> After all both Ruby/Python came out of nowhere around 1992-4

If you are talking first public release, that's "1991-1995", if you are talking 1.0 release that's "1994-1996" (in both cases, Python and then Ruby.)

[VeejayRampay]

The Ruby developer in me wants to have his lunch and eat it.

I'm sure there's a way to have the crazy whole that is Ruby AND the speed. Dammit, Javascript is fast now and it's not like it was more optim-ready than Ruby is to begin with.

[vidarh]

> I wonder then, if all that talent is not better served by implementing a BETTER version of the core 50% or 70% Ruby language as a new language, getting rid of edge cases and garbage.

I would very much like to see that. But I think we first need more competition to MRI.

E.g. note the proposal for "refinements" for Ruby 2.1 which is an implementation nightmare for anyone that wants a fast implementation. See Charles Nutter's (of jRuby fame) comments about it, for example. Since MRI is as slow as it is, there's little incentive to keep features like that out - it won't kill MRI performance.

It's also hard to determine exactly what the viable subset should be, since most those of us who would like a faster Ruby also love Ruby a lot because of how dynamic it is, when it is used right, and jump ship if the language lost too much flexibility in the quest for that performance.

Part of my own motivation for writing about writing a Ruby compiler is exploring what parts of Ruby can be implemented efficiently because frankly it's hard to even guess exactly how an "efficient Ruby" should look.

There are some obvious problems for implementations that want to boost performance, like too much reliance on eval() and defining eigenclasses on objects, as well as autoload, require and include, all of which can worst case trash all method caching and optimisations all over the place.

But throwing out all of that would be brutal, especially given common Ruby patterns likes dynamically require'ing everything in a directory at application startup, which should be fine, vs. a "require" occurring later in execution. And it's not clear that there aren't other common patterns that'll cause a lot of pain.

I think we will see at least implementations with options to disable support for certain things, or with support to let applications declare "from now on, no shenanigans" to let the implementation take shortcuts, would be very helpful.

There's a lot of things developers could do themselves, that would let even a compliant implementation speed up. E.g. call #freeze on all classes you have no intention of modifying somewhere that is easily identified by relatively superficial analysis would make a massive difference (suddenly you can cache lots of extra methods, and even inline and unroll things like "each" loops in many cases that'd otherwise be an expensive flurry of method calls).

Other things are about developer practice: Freeze all objects you don't want to modify ASAP on creation. A good implementation could make good use of that too. But today there is no incentive for Ruby users to write Ruby that is amenable to fast execution because the implementations don't take advantage of it.

Once there is an implementation that makes the advantages of writing Ruby to a subset that is more amenable to fast execution, then I think it'd be possible to get traction for deprecating and removing features that are a performance nightmare.

> Matter of fact, didn't Matz do something like that, with an embedded-oriented Ruby like language recently?

Sort of, though mruby appears to focus on size and ability to embed rather than specifically picking a subset that's amenable to a fast implementation. It's still a bytecode interpreter, for example, and it's not even aiming for complying with the (already limited) ISO standard for Ruby.