[Ironruby-core] Will the performance catch up be next milestone?

Nathan Stults Nathan_Stults at HSIHealth.com
Thu Jul 29 00:40:10 EDT 2010

Yeah, but who wants to *deploy* Ruby code on Windows? Develop,
sure...but then performance doesn't matter. If IronRuby is aiming only
to be a windows centric technology, I can't imagine what future it
really has in store for it, that is, standing alone on its own two feet
as a Ruby implementation. Integrated into .NET software is a different
story irrelevant to the benchmarks being discussed, but I don't think
the benchmarks are misleading as far as the Ruby community at large is
concerned, because for that group, I don't imagine Windows is a viable
deployment target ( why would it be?) so benchmarking on Linux is
probably the most realistic kind of benchmarking you can do when
comparing ruby interpreters for that particular audience. I suppose that
is one of the things that makes the IronRuby project an enigma to me -
in my mind Ruby is a finger pointing to Linux, so it seems an odd one
for Microsoft to extend.


From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Orion Edwards
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:59 PM
To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Will the performance catch up be next


It's probably not intentional but his benchmark graphs are misleading. 


Because Mono is not nearly as fast or as mature as Microsoft's .NET, the
performance of IronRuby on mono is much worse. Unfortunately all his
graphs show Mono performance only, which makes IronRuby appear very


If you look at the numbers directly (there is a table further down
comparing IronRuby on mono vs IronRuby on .net), IronRuby is much much
faster. It appears to me that IronRuby on windows (.NET) is faster than
MRI 1.9.2 ("regular" ruby) on windows!


It's still not as fast as MRI 1.9.2 on linux, but it's not that far
behind either.


On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Ray Linn <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:

IBM Engineer completed a performance benchmark for rubys, seems ir does
not well done in the performance.

Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100728/2ca60e1c/attachment.html>

More information about the Ironruby-core mailing list