@bascule and that means it's automatically fast? are you under the impression that there's some separate, slower instruction set for MRI?
-
-
Replying to @jamesgolick
@jamesgolick if the x86 assembly matches the output from equivalent Java code, then it’s Java speed. Take that for what you will2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jamesgolick
@jamesgolick the short answer is boxed nums still hurt numerical performance but invocation itself is quite fast /cc@headius1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jamesgolick
@jamesgolick@bascule ditto, we tried to port an internal service to jruby instead of scala, and got 15x slower socket performance1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @capotej
@capotej@jamesgolick had someone report the opposite porting a Scala project to Celluloid(::IO) *shrug*#ymmv1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bascule
@bascule@jamesgolick im guessing monads/actors/bullshit were involved; bench it against scala/netty and i promise it'll be faster1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @capotej
@capotej@jamesgolick Netty is pretty awesome... and yes Scala will most likely be faster1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bascule
@bascule@jamesgolick not to knock on celluloid at all btw, its an awesome project, but ruby will always be slower than static compiled lang1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@capotej @jamesgolick InvokeDynamic goes a long way to eliminating the performance difference
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.