Ruby 2.1 Released
ftp.ruby-lang.org
ftp.ruby-lang.org
Pretty graphs here: http://www.isrubyfastyet.com/ (I run a nightly benchmark.)
I will add 2.1.0 right now and hopefully we will have confirmed data in the morning.
EDIT: You mention 20% improvement on Rake tasks. Simple Rake tasks are dominated by Rails' startup time. My benchmark reads about a 15% improvement in startup time, which agrees with what you are saying.
However, the 1.9 series was a significant step back from 1.8.7 for out-of-the-box Rails startup time. Ruby 2.0.0 pretty much matched Ruby 1.8.7. Now with 2.1.0, Ruby is finally categorically faster than 1.8.7 for starting Rails. (Rails itself has also made improvements; but my benchmark has been locked at Rails 3.1.3)
And, you were right, I put Ruby 2.1.0 live on one of my web apps last night, and didn't really get any kind of significant speed boost, what I did get was a significant decrease in garbage collection. here's the new relic graph, ruby 2.1.0 went live at 17:45 on the chart https://cloudup.com/ifosPh4rX4v
A micro-benchmark suite is better than a few micro-benchmarks, but really I would like a suite of real-world micro-applications.
I'm willing to add more benchmarks so it's not just Rails, but I simply don't know what to add.
Running with a more modern VM might yield better results.
String#scrub: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/1e8a05c1dfee94db9b6b825097...
String#freeze example:
For those who need #scrub behavior in ruby 1.9 or 2.0, I wrote a gem a while ago to do this -- I wrote it before I was aware of the upcoming String#scrub api -- I'll maybe change it to provide a String#scrub 'backfill' now, with monkey patching even?
It was mentioned in the changelog.
It won't take many lines of pure ruby code to do it for ruby 1.9 too, although presumably not performing quite as well as a C version.
At any rate, this is definitely something I and people I know need to do all the time, although apparently most ruby devs never need to do it; but I'm glad it's finally made it into stdlib.
I've completed a pure-ruby polyfill that should work on 1.9 as well as 2.0, any ruby interpreter including jruby. (It does have some issues mentioned in the readme).
(It was for a tiny weekend project where I was reading logs from the ZNC IRC bouncer to present a nice web UI for them, for some reason sometimes there were invalid characters and I didn't really understand why - possible that I was just reading them with the wrong input encoding but I think I tried a few different ones.)
Rather, Strin#scrub simply removes invalid bytes from the input, by default replacing them with the unicode replacement char � (or simply "?" if not in a unicode encoding).
This is, for instance, what many editors and other software I've used will do too -- if you say to open a file in encoding X, and some bytes in it are invalid for encoding X, they will be replaced with � or ? in display.
I find it a pretty useful thing in my own software, where input is _supposed_ to be a given known encoding, but upstream providers sometimes provide data with corrupt bytes, errors, or sub-passages in wrong encoding. It's not really my software's job to come up with the 'real' encoding -- and there may be no 'correct' encoding, often the error is corrupt bytes or mixed encodings -- but it is my software's job to show what can be shown without raising.
I think I've seen other gems that try to use heuristics to guess or discover an appropriate encoding for text with no known encoding. But String#scrub is not that. Here's some gems that say they'll do that (I have no experience with any of tem): https://github.com/brianmario/charlock_holmes ; https://github.com/jmhodges/rchardet ; https://github.com/janx/chardet2
Ruby 2.0-p353
Transactions: 934 hits Availability: 100.00 % Elapsed time: 76.66 secs Data transferred: 0.43 MB Response time: 3.19 secs Transaction rate: 12.18 trans/sec Throughput: 0.01 MB/sec Concurrency: 38.92 Successful transactions: 934 Failed transactions: 0 Longest transaction: 3.93 Shortest transaction: 0.67
Ruby 2.1 Transactions: 1136 hits Availability: 100.00 % Elapsed time: 76.41 secs Data transferred: 0.53 MB Response time: 2.64 secs Transaction rate: 14.87 trans/sec Throughput: 0.01 MB/sec Concurrency: 39.30 Successful transactions: 1136 Failed transactions: 0 Longest transaction: 3.18 Shortest transaction: 0.56
Now i am waiting for someone doing some benchmarks with the two ( & JRuby ).
http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/branches/ruby_2_1/
EDIT: rbenv-update'='(cd ~/.rbenv/plugins/ruby-build && git pull) did the trick.
Merry Xmas.
There's a world of difference when something is unsigned because it's impossible to prove that it was what the developer(s) signed off to release.
=> :foo
2.1.0p0 :002 > def eval_it_now_bitch! lulz
2.1.0p0 :003?> eval lulz.to_s
2.1.0p0 :004?> end
=> :eval_it_now_bitch!
2.1.0p0 :005 > eval_it_now_bitch! x
hello
=> nil