https://img.skitch.com/20110515-x4r8414pkei9j3h73d1sy67iud.j...
1.9.2 and 1.9.3 is really slow at starting up bundler/rails/gems.
Please don't call something with 221 dependencies a blank Rails project. More the amount of conflicting half baked gems you've added makes it an unfair complaint about Rails. I've assure you that there is no language / framework in the universe in which does not take a hit when adding too many dependencies. Either execution wise but more often it just breaks your spirit.
Anyway back to numbers, on 3 year old desktop under Linux, executing tests on the "blank" project yielded:
<pre> real 0m8.698s user 0m5.996s sys 0m2.532s </pre>
For some reason ruby is much slower on OSX than linux, that is an interesting project to investigate. I've think the platform difference shows the 10 second difference, spite the slower CPU. It would be quite interesting to understand why ruby is slow on OSX. Each to his own itch to scratch.
There are 28 gems specified in the Gemfile. That's not an unreasonable amount of gems. With dependencies, the total amount of gems being required is 76.
Hell, only using Rails and sqlite-ruby will require 26 gems to be installed.
http://www.stifflog.com/2011/05/15/why-is-rails-startup-so-s...
I'm not that deeply in Ruby/RubyGems/Bundler internals to be 100% sure, but on the other hand I really can't see how it could work reasonably fast while using the strategy for looking up libraries it uses.
If I calculate (20 seconds) x (number of times I bootstrap rails), it might even be worth my time to have a go at it.
There is a bug supposed to be fixed in ruby 1.9.3 that addresses something to do with the load path and bootstrap performance, but no idea when that's due to land. If it's truly the cause, it seems like this should be a patch to 1.9.2 instead.
You might also want to see if this is related:
https://github.com/rdp/faster_require/blob/master/lib/faster...