Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster?
by jacobsenscott on Thursday February 11, 2021 @01:39AM
(#26098901)
If you were IO bound you could have run many more rails processes. There's no reason to limit your self to one process per core. You can run many times that number of processes since they are all just waiting on IO.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster?
by EdwardDiego on Thursday February 11, 2021 @04:32AM
(#26099757)
I'm sure the original commenter is loving all your 20/20 hindsight.
The original commenter offered his story as an issue with Ruby preventing X.
The 20/20 hindsight is not meant to retroactively solve their problem, it's mean as a counter-argument, that the problem was their design, not Ruby.
Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster?
by Person5478 on Thursday February 11, 2021 @08:30AM
(#26101256)
The posters point is that Ruby has surprising concurrency semantics compared to other solutions.
It has the same concurrency semantics w/r/t IO as any other language that isn't using an event based runtime. If you wrote your app in C and used a single thread you'd have the exact same issue.