Ruby 3.0 Released With ~3x The Performance

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Ruby 3.0 Released With ~3x The Performance

After a half-decade working toward it, Ruby 3.0 was released on Christmas Day with much greater performance and other features for this high-level general purpose programming language...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ruby-3.0-Released

[Apophis]

Meanwhile Python performance stuck

[lyamc]

Meanwhile Python performance stuck

Ruby, python, php, doesn’t matter if it gets the job done.

Afterwards, if they need the performance they can always rewrite it in a systems language.

[flower]

Tbh, 3x times better performance sounds very much like its performance sucked very hard.

[uid313]

If you use Ruby, a language that got popular only thanks to Ruby of Rails and that nobody uses except old Ruby on Rails developers, a language with no influx of new users, then you might want to consider moving on to Python, a hugely popular language, perhaps the world's most popular languages, taught all over the world at universities to people from all backgrounds whether it be mathematicians, statisticians, physicists, engineers or software developers.
If you're interested in a systems language you want to look into Rust which draws inspiration from Ruby and features things familiar to Rust developers such as the double-pipe lambda expression ||, and implicit return statements where you end the line with the expression you want to return without using the return keyword.

Meanwhile Python performance stuck

No, Python's performance has long been better than Ruby's.
Isn't Python's performance similar to other interpreted languages such as PHP, Perl, Tcl, and JavaScript?

Tbh, 3x times better performance sounds very much like its performance sucked very hard.

Yes, it did. Ruby was infamous for its poor performance.

[timofonic]

Just a note: If I was asked to choose the best programming language from the top 20 (https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index) I wouldn't choose any of them because all of them are missing features I consider essential for solving hard problems.

Just for curiosity...

What languages would you choose? Why?

[uid313]

Just a note: If I was asked to choose the best programming language from the top 20 (https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index) I wouldn't choose any of them because all of them are missing features I consider essential for solving hard problems.

I don't do any hard problems so I don't know what those are.
What kind of hard problems are you talking about?
Can you give some example of hard problems?
And can say what language you would chose, and what problem it solves.

[JackLilhammers]

Just a note: If I was asked to choose the best programming language from the top 20 (https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index) I wouldn't choose any of them because all of them are missing features I consider essential for solving hard problems.

What are the features you're missing?
The only things I can think of are reliability guarantees and maybe some purely functional stuff.
However I'd argue that your definition of essential might be very personal

[vladpetric]

"Let it never be said that programming is dead
'Cause there's so little else occupying my head
There is nothing I need, 'cept the function to breathe
But I'm not really fussed doesn't matter to me

Ruby Ruby Ruby Ruby
Do ya do ya do ya do ya
Know what your doing, doing to me
Ruby Ruby Ruby Ruby"

With apologies to the Kaiser Chiefs.

[peterdk]

Is there some explanation why are they comparing Ruby 3.0 performance to Ruby 2.0 - instead of using Ruby 2.7 as the baseline? Maybe 2.0 is a typo in their release announcement.

They set their goal of 3x when starting on working from 2.0 -> 3.0. So 2.1 - 2.7 are all part of the steps to get 3.0 being 3x as fast. So their focus for all these intermediate release was to speed it up as well.