Ironruby core - Jul 2010 - Will the performance catch up be next milestone?

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


http://programmingzen.com/2010/07/19/the-great-ruby-shootout-july-2010/
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Quoting the web site:

*Disclaimer*

Synthetic benchmarks cannot predict how fast your programs will be when
dealing with a particular implementation. They provide an (entertaining)
educated guess, but you shouldn?t draw overly definitive conclusions from
them. The values reported here should be assumed to be characteristic of
server-side ? and long running ? processes; they should be taken with a
grain of salt.

If your primary concern is speed, you should probably look to write your app
in C or Assembly.

--
Will Green
http://hotgazpacho.org/


On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:58 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.
>
>
> http://programmingzen.com/2010/07/19/the-great-ruby-shootout-july-2010/
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100728/d61c178f/attachment.html>

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 slow.

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.
>
>
> http://programmingzen.com/2010/07/19/the-great-ruby-shootout-july-2010/
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100729/993b6450/attachment.html>

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
milestone?

 

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
slow.

 

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.


http://programmingzen.com/2010/07/19/the-great-ruby-shootout-july-2010/
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

 

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

IronRuby is exciting because it brings Windows, Ruby and .NET together as
one.  There are plenty of cases where deploying to Windows would either be
ideal, or in some cases, a must.  Imagine developing a Ruby app that needs
to integrate with Sharepoint, or Great Plains; how would you go about doing
so?  You could implement web services in C++, or perhaps C#... but then you
have several languages to deal with and multiple code bases to manage, as
opposed to a single Ruby app.

Enter IronRuby.  Now you have the ability to harness the all of the Windows
oriented .NET libraries *from* Ruby.  You could use DRb, or perhaps RESTful
services using Sinatra, and then consume those services from a Rails app.
So, while I agree that I''d rather deploy my main app to a linux box,
it''s
great to know that I can use IronRuby on Windows to seamlessly integrate
with Microsoft solutions.  I would imagine that it''s these sorts of
situations that Microsoft is banking on (as well as scripting scenarios and
such).

-Charles

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Nathan Stults <Nathan_Stults at
hsihealth.com
> wrote:
> 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
> milestone?
>
>
>
> 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 slow.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> http://programmingzen.com/2010/07/19/the-great-ruby-shootout-july-2010/
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100729/16dd371d/attachment-0001.html>

I think Ruby on Windows has it''s place. There are many companies with
investment in MS servers, Applications and infrastructure so don''t
completely discard IronRuby for Windows.
Also there''re other scenarios that don''t involve Ruby on the
server like
Silverlight, standalone WPF apps, Excel Interop, Plugins, Scripting Apps.

PS. There''s a thread about IronRuby usage on this mailing list.
I''ve not had
a chance to read it, but that could give you an idea of the way people is
currently using it. I''ve not had a chance to read it, so it might just
prove
you''re right...

Regards
Miguel



There was recently a thread about adopti

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Nathan Stults
<Nathan_Stults at hsihealth.com>wrote:
> 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.
>
>

-- 
Miguel A. Madero Reyes
www.miguelmadero.com (blog)
me at miguelmadero.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100729/d76b4bbf/attachment.html>

This benchmark was done against mono 2.4.4 which is significantly old. I
guess 2.6 shouldn''t bring much performance
improvements but the upcoming 2.8 release with the new GC can make huge
differences specially on GC bound
benchmarks such as binary_trees.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Nathan Stults
<Nathan_Stults at hsihealth.com>wrote:
> 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
> milestone?
>
>
>
> 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 slow.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> http://programmingzen.com/2010/07/19/the-great-ruby-shootout-july-2010/
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100729/bd390be8/attachment.html>

On 29/07/2010, at 4:40 PM, Nathan Stults wrote:
> Yeah, but who wants to *deploy* Ruby code on Windows?
Personally, I wouldn''t run a public facing internet site on windows,
but that''s only because I spent 2 years developing rails apps on
FreeBSD for another company and picked up a lot of skills from it. Otherwise,
I''d run a windows server. I also know a lot of people who run windows
servers. From what I''ve seen the penetration of linux servers inside
small-to-medium companies here is approaching 0%.
IronRuby (particularly if it ever gets good userfriendly IIS integration) means
I can develop a rails app and get the local microsoft sysadmin to deploy it in a
couple of clicks.
> Develop, sure?but then performance doesn?t matter.
Really? I become rather unhappy if I''m having to dev something where
the performance sucks (compiling C++ apps really really gets my goat). This is
the primary reason why I continually wish they''d improve the IronRuby
startup perf. **scalability** doesn''t matter for development, but
scalability and performance are two different things, and the benchmark
certainly doesn''t measure scalability
> 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?)
Umm... Why wouldn''t it be? Windows server pricing is actually not too
bad, so long as you stay away from the clusterf*** that is SQL server
(it''s great tech but the licensing and pricing are crazy). Again,
I''ve seen plenty of windows servers run by company sysadmins and
I''d love to be able to deploy some rails apps onto them (MRI is worse
than terrible for deploying to IIS, so again, IronRuby could stand to do really
well).

You could argue that the "target audience" for that article was 23
year olds creating the next FaceTube because it was posted to Hacker News,
however Antonio Cangiano is an Evangelist for IBM. I wouldn''t equate
"IBM" with internet startups either... It seemed like the target
audience was simply  "people who are interested in ruby
performance"....
> 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.
I agree with your point of view, however I draw the opposite conclusion. Looking
at MRI and JRuby, Linux (or some BSD/solaris/etc) really is the go-to platform
if you want to develop a ruby application. The performance of MRI in particular
is clearly a lot better on *nix. This is then coupled with the fact that Rails
is an outstanding platform for getting web apps up and running, and web apps are
pretty hot these days.

From that point of view, it makes perfect sense for Microsoft to build IronRuby
as a top notch Ruby implementation for windows. If they pull this off, and
couple it with some other windows integration type stuff (an IIS admin plugin to
administer rails sites would be awesome) then in theory two things can happen:

1) People that were familiar with windows but are considering switching away
because of a ruby/rails app might stay on windows (and then, pay microsoft for
windows server and maybe even SQL server eventually)

2) If they do a REALLY good job, people running rails apps on linux might switch
to windows!

I''d love to see #2 happen, but unfortunately it''s a long way
off. The IronRuby team seems to be really awesome, but there''s only
like 3 of you, right? :-(


>  
> 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
milestone?
>  
> 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 slow.
>  
> 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.
> 
> 
> http://programmingzen.com/2010/07/19/the-great-ruby-shootout-july-2010/
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100731/8faab627/attachment-0001.html>

When IR achieves a compatibility that will run Rails 3, I''m planning on
getting it running thru an ASP.NET site which will enable deployment to the
Azure platform. I believe that will be a very compelling solution for many
people, especially with a mapper adapter to Table Storage.

Mark

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Jul 2010, at 23:27, Orion Edwards <orion.edwards at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> On 29/07/2010, at 4:40 PM, Nathan Stults wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, but who wants to *deploy* Ruby code on Windows?
> 
> Personally, I wouldn''t run a public facing internet site on
windows, but that''s only because I spent 2 years developing rails apps
on FreeBSD for another company and picked up a lot of skills from it. Otherwise,
I''d run a windows server. I also know a lot of people who run windows
servers. From what I''ve seen the penetration of linux servers inside
small-to-medium companies here is approaching 0%.
> IronRuby (particularly if it ever gets good userfriendly IIS integration)
means I can develop a rails app and get the local microsoft sysadmin to deploy
it in a couple of clicks.
> 
>> Develop, sure?but then performance doesn?t matter.
> 
> Really? I become rather unhappy if I''m having to dev something
where the performance sucks (compiling C++ apps really really gets my goat).
This is the primary reason why I continually wish they''d improve the
IronRuby startup perf. **scalability** doesn''t matter for development,
but scalability and performance are two different things, and the benchmark
certainly doesn''t measure scalability
> 
>> 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?)
> 
> Umm... Why wouldn''t it be? Windows server pricing is actually not
too bad, so long as you stay away from the clusterf*** that is SQL server
(it''s great tech but the licensing and pricing are crazy). Again,
I''ve seen plenty of windows servers run by company sysadmins and
I''d love to be able to deploy some rails apps onto them (MRI is worse
than terrible for deploying to IIS, so again, IronRuby could stand to do really
well).
> 
> You could argue that the "target audience" for that article was
23 year olds creating the next FaceTube because it was posted to Hacker News,
however Antonio Cangiano is an Evangelist for IBM. I wouldn''t equate
"IBM" with internet startups either... It seemed like the target
audience was simply  "people who are interested in ruby
performance"....
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I agree with your point of view, however I draw the opposite conclusion.
Looking at MRI and JRuby, Linux (or some BSD/solaris/etc) really is the go-to
platform if you want to develop a ruby application. The performance of MRI in
particular is clearly a lot better on *nix. This is then coupled with the fact
that Rails is an outstanding platform for getting web apps up and running, and
web apps are pretty hot these days.
> 
> From that point of view, it makes perfect sense for Microsoft to build
IronRuby as a top notch Ruby implementation for windows. If they pull this off,
and couple it with some other windows integration type stuff (an IIS admin
plugin to administer rails sites would be awesome) then in theory two things can
happen:
> 
> 1) People that were familiar with windows but are considering switching
away because of a ruby/rails app might stay on windows (and then, pay microsoft
for windows server and maybe even SQL server eventually)
> 
> 2) If they do a REALLY good job, people running rails apps on linux might
switch to windows!
> 
> I''d love to see #2 happen, but unfortunately it''s a long
way off. The IronRuby team seems to be really awesome, but there''s only
like 3 of you, right? :-(
> 
> 
> 
>>  
>> 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
milestone?
>>  
>> 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 slow.
>>  
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> http://programmingzen.com/2010/07/19/the-great-ruby-shootout-july-2010/
>> --
>> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100731/3d5d9d5d/attachment-0001.html>

Oh, and RavenDB, which I have successfully deployed as an Azure worker role.

Mark

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Jul 2010, at 23:27, Orion Edwards <orion.edwards at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> On 29/07/2010, at 4:40 PM, Nathan Stults wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, but who wants to *deploy* Ruby code on Windows?
> 
> Personally, I wouldn''t run a public facing internet site on
windows, but that''s only because I spent 2 years developing rails apps
on FreeBSD for another company and picked up a lot of skills from it. Otherwise,
I''d run a windows server. I also know a lot of people who run windows
servers. From what I''ve seen the penetration of linux servers inside
small-to-medium companies here is approaching 0%.
> IronRuby (particularly if it ever gets good userfriendly IIS integration)
means I can develop a rails app and get the local microsoft sysadmin to deploy
it in a couple of clicks.
> 
>> Develop, sure?but then performance doesn?t matter.
> 
> Really? I become rather unhappy if I''m having to dev something
where the performance sucks (compiling C++ apps really really gets my goat).
This is the primary reason why I continually wish they''d improve the
IronRuby startup perf. **scalability** doesn''t matter for development,
but scalability and performance are two different things, and the benchmark
certainly doesn''t measure scalability
> 
>> 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?)
> 
> Umm... Why wouldn''t it be? Windows server pricing is actually not
too bad, so long as you stay away from the clusterf*** that is SQL server
(it''s great tech but the licensing and pricing are crazy). Again,
I''ve seen plenty of windows servers run by company sysadmins and
I''d love to be able to deploy some rails apps onto them (MRI is worse
than terrible for deploying to IIS, so again, IronRuby could stand to do really
well).
> 
> You could argue that the "target audience" for that article was
23 year olds creating the next FaceTube because it was posted to Hacker News,
however Antonio Cangiano is an Evangelist for IBM. I wouldn''t equate
"IBM" with internet startups either... It seemed like the target
audience was simply  "people who are interested in ruby
performance"....
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I agree with your point of view, however I draw the opposite conclusion.
Looking at MRI and JRuby, Linux (or some BSD/solaris/etc) really is the go-to
platform if you want to develop a ruby application. The performance of MRI in
particular is clearly a lot better on *nix. This is then coupled with the fact
that Rails is an outstanding platform for getting web apps up and running, and
web apps are pretty hot these days.
> 
> From that point of view, it makes perfect sense for Microsoft to build
IronRuby as a top notch Ruby implementation for windows. If they pull this off,
and couple it with some other windows integration type stuff (an IIS admin
plugin to administer rails sites would be awesome) then in theory two things can
happen:
> 
> 1) People that were familiar with windows but are considering switching
away because of a ruby/rails app might stay on windows (and then, pay microsoft
for windows server and maybe even SQL server eventually)
> 
> 2) If they do a REALLY good job, people running rails apps on linux might
switch to windows!
> 
> I''d love to see #2 happen, but unfortunately it''s a long
way off. The IronRuby team seems to be really awesome, but there''s only
like 3 of you, right? :-(
> 
> 
> 
>>  
>> 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
milestone?
>>  
>> 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 slow.
>>  
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> http://programmingzen.com/2010/07/19/the-great-ruby-shootout-july-2010/
>> --
>> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100731/dbeef5df/attachment.html>

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Orion Edwards <orion.edwards at
gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with your point of view, however I draw the opposite conclusion.
> Looking at MRI and JRuby, Linux (or some BSD/solaris/etc) really is the
> go-to platform if you want to develop a ruby application. The performance
of
> MRI in particular is clearly a lot better on *nix. This is then coupled
with
> the fact that Rails is an outstanding platform for getting web apps up and
> running, and web apps are pretty hot these days.
FWIW, we do a *lot* of work to make sure JRuby behaves properly on
Windows...in many cases more work than even Ruby core can put in.
We''ve recognized that Ruby needs better representation on Windows, and
until IronRuby can take over we''ve tried to make JRuby at least a
better option than MRI.

Yes, there''s the unfortunate truth that almost none of the JRuby core
devs use Windows, but we are actively trying to avoid Windows being
treated as a second-class platform. We even have a Windows installer,
executable, native library support (including FFI) and maintain all of
it for our Windows users. So while it''s probably fair to say *nix
platforms are better supported by JRuby, I think it''s also important
to point out that JRuby is currently a better (more consistent, more
stable, faster) option for Ruby on Windows than MRI.

- Charlie

Chiming in a bit late, hoping it will be useful though!

 > Yeah, but who wants to **deploy** Ruby code on Windows?

I do deploy Ruby code on Windows (production), just not for public facing
web apps.

For instance, I have MRI 1.8.6 data crunching (datawarehouse) running on
Windows.

I also run JRuby on Windows (see
http://blog.logeek.fr/2010/8/2/on-jruby-resque-and-windows) to interact with
APIs that run only on Windows and to generate PDFs (the web front-end is
itself running on Ubuntu).

I have another client who has been able to automate an amazing amount of
work in their company, thanks to relying on Ruby, OLE or other APIs (they
work with many tools such as SAS, Excel, Access).

I am for one *very* happy by the work put by both the JRuby team and the
RubyInstaller project to ensure things work properly there (and obviously,
by the IronRuby team too :-).

Just to add a few data points!

-- Thibaut
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100807/8dc5f7b1/attachment.html>

Sorry Charles, I didn''t mean to infer that the JRuby team
wasn''t doing a great job on windows (you certainly are -
you''re also doing a lot better job than the core ruby guys for windows
as well. Are they still compiling with MSVC6?), my point was more about
perception.

I''m not sure if this is true internationally, but from what
I''ve seen of the industry here and in australia, most development shops
here seem to fall into 3 categories:

1: Web shops (PHP, etc) which have nothing to do with either Java or .NET
2: Microsoft shops (asp.net, windows client apps, deploying on windows server)
3: Java shops.

This last lot of Java shops tends to be building software for larger companies
(banks, etc), and seems to near-universally deploy on a unix of some kind.
I''m not sure if this is because they think Java itself runs better on a
non-windows OS, or if they just prefer it. (I''ve never professionally
employed as a Java developer so I haven''t had any direct interaction
with these companies)

At any rate, JRuby (at least from a perception/mindshare point) gets lumped
along with the rest of Java. The perception is that JRuby is Java, and Java is
better on unix, so therefore you should run JRuby on Unix. I don''t
think this would change even if 100% of the JRuby core devs used windows all day
long :-)


On 8/08/2010, at 6:41 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Orion Edwards <orion.edwards at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with your point of view, however I draw the opposite
conclusion.
>> Looking at MRI and JRuby, Linux (or some BSD/solaris/etc) really is the
>> go-to platform if you want to develop a ruby application. The
performance of
>> MRI in particular is clearly a lot better on *nix. This is then coupled
with
>> the fact that Rails is an outstanding platform for getting web apps up
and
>> running, and web apps are pretty hot these days.
> 
> FWIW, we do a *lot* of work to make sure JRuby behaves properly on
> Windows...in many cases more work than even Ruby core can put in.
> We''ve recognized that Ruby needs better representation on Windows,
and
> until IronRuby can take over we''ve tried to make JRuby at least a
> better option than MRI.
> 
> Yes, there''s the unfortunate truth that almost none of the JRuby
core
> devs use Windows, but we are actively trying to avoid Windows being
> treated as a second-class platform. We even have a Windows installer,
> executable, native library support (including FFI) and maintain all of
> it for our Windows users. So while it''s probably fair to say *nix
> platforms are better supported by JRuby, I think it''s also
important
> to point out that JRuby is currently a better (more consistent, more
> stable, faster) option for Ruby on Windows than MRI.
> 
> - Charlie
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core