# Re: Zed and Luis drop the bomb on Ruby's poor performance **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [May 22, 2006, 7:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-zed-and-luis-drop-the-bomb-on-rubys-poor-performance/95134 "2006-05-22T19:16:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jamal86](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ebca7d/32.png) [@jamal86](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jamal86)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 7:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-zed-and-luis-drop-the-bomb-on-rubys-poor-performance/95134/1 "2006-05-22T19:16:04Z")
A couple weeks ago I asked whether YARV could compile most Ruby programs on Win32 (since I could not figure out a satisfactory answer from web pages to which I was referred). I am still hoping that someone can apprise me as to the viability of doing this at present. Are stand-alone Windows executables possible? Is Ruby 1.9 required or does 1.84 work? Can most .rbw programs be compiled? What kind of performance gain is typical? Thanks, Jamal ---
**Author:** ![jamal86](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ebca7d/32.png) [@jamal86](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jamal86)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 11:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-zed-and-luis-drop-the-bomb-on-rubys-poor-performance/95134/2 "2006-05-22T23:09:43Z")
On May 22, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Jamal M. wrote: > A couple weeks ago I asked whether YARV could compile most Ruby > programs > on Win32 (since I could not figure out a satisfactory answer from web > pages to which I was referred). I am still hoping that someone can > apprise me as to the viability of doing this at present. Are > stand-alone Windows executables possible? Is Ruby 1.9 required or > does > 1.84 work? Can most .rbw programs be compiled? What kind of > performance gain is typical? I grabbed a copy of yarv and tried it out on my powerbook. It was dead-simple to do. You should try this yourself, I bet it’ll take you all of an hour including time for a coffee break. PS: Don’t hijack threads, or, Don’t trim context. Both are considered Very Bad Form. – Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net) This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant [http://trackmap.robotcoop.com](http://trackmap.robotcoop.com) ---
**Author:** ![jamal86](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ebca7d/32.png) [@jamal86](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jamal86)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2006, 5:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-zed-and-luis-drop-the-bomb-on-rubys-poor-performance/95134/3 "2006-05-23T05:28:53Z")
On 5/22/06, Jamal M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > A couple weeks ago I asked whether YARV could compile most Ruby programs > on Win32 (since I could not figure out a satisfactory answer from web > pages to which I was referred). I am still hoping that someone can > apprise me as to the viability of doing this at present. Are > stand-alone Windows executables possible? Is Ruby 1.9 required or does > 1.84 work? Can most .rbw programs be compiled? What kind of > performance gain is typical? This is not the purpose of YARV. YARV is not _yet_ aiming for an AOT compiler, but that’s a long-term goal as I understand it. Stand-alone executables may or may not ever be possible in that sense. YARV does not work with Ruby 1.8.4. YARV is still a work in progress and should only be used for experiments, not production. -austin ---
**Author:** ![jamal86](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ebca7d/32.png) [@jamal86](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jamal86)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2006, 1:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-zed-and-luis-drop-the-bomb-on-rubys-poor-performance/95134/4 "2006-05-23T13:47:35Z")
On 5/22/06, Jim W. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Austin Z. wrote: > > > This is not the purpose of YARV. YARV is not _yet_ aiming for an AOT > > compiler, but that’s a long-term goal as I understand it. > > Hmmmm … an AOT is mentioned in the 2004 RubyConf slides > > ([http://zenspider.com/dl/rubyconf2004/RubyConf2004\_YARV\_pub.pdf](http://zenspider.com/dl/rubyconf2004/RubyConf2004_YARV_pub.pdf), slide > > 14 and the diagram on slide 15).[1] According to the diagram, the AOT > > will produce C source code. Interestings > > Ahhh, you did say _yet_. Ok. I wonder if the plans have changed from > these old slides. Yeah. The emphasis for YARV – as I understand it – is being Rite. Then being an AOT compiler. 😉 I think that Eric is right though, YARV will probably not produce stand-alone Ruby executables, even with C source for that. It will produce code that can be compiled and linked against a Ruby run-time (the VM). -austin ---
**Author:** ![jamal86](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ebca7d/32.png) [@jamal86](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/jamal86)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2006, 5:56am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-zed-and-luis-drop-the-bomb-on-rubys-poor-performance/95134/5 "2006-05-23T05:56:46Z")
Austin Z. wrote: > This is not the purpose of YARV. YARV is not _yet_ aiming for an AOT > compiler, but that’s a long-term goal as I understand it. Hmmmm … an AOT is mentioned in the 2004 RubyConf slides ([http://zenspider.com/dl/rubyconf2004/RubyConf2004\_YARV\_pub.pdf](http://zenspider.com/dl/rubyconf2004/RubyConf2004_YARV_pub.pdf), slide 14 and the diagram on slide 15).[1] According to the diagram, the AOT will produce C source code. Interestings Ahhh, you did say _yet_. Ok. I wonder if the plans have changed from these old slides. – Jim W. [1] I remembered this because it was the first time I had seen the acronym AOT.