M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
that one could use to quickly compare alternative implementations. Since
it’s a little unclear to me what the “target market focus” is for the
language, I’ll invite the members of this list to post what they think
should be in such a suite. Although it’s an obvious “answer”, I think
I’d prefer to leave Rails out of the mix, because Rails performance
depends on both a web server and a database directly, and the server OS,
client/browser and network bandwidth indirectly.
So … what should be in a “standard Ruby benchmark suite?” Does such a
thing exist already?
I’ve never heard of one, but I can’t think of anyone better than a
professional performance consultant to drive one
If they were to be chosen as the focal point for performance
improvement, the things I’d benefit most from being benchmarked are:
I’ve pointed out higher-level libraries rather than core because they
exercise more of Ruby with fewer data points. Is that the right
approach? I realise that one downfall of this perspective is that the
library authors may have avoided certain techniques precisely because
they are too slow in the current Ruby implementation, so those
techniques would be completely sidelined. Continuations are one that
instantly spring to mind - I can only find callcc used in one file in
An alternative would be to use rubicon’s full run time as the benchmark
- that way we know that all the language features are being flexed, but
some might get too much weighting.