News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster? by throwaway189262 on Thursday February 11, 2021 @04:32AM (#26099754)
He said there was high db latency. This matters a ton when your language is single threaded and not using async io. 20 queries would tie up the whole server for a second at 50ms db latency.

You can get around it by using async instead of blocking, using fibers which don't block, or using a thread pool so other threads can keep serving.

I'm not experienced with Ruby but it sounds like Ruby doesn't do any of those

Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster? by dragonwriter on Thursday February 11, 2021 @04:40AM (#26099788)
> I'm not experienced with Ruby but it sounds like Ruby doesn't do any of those

Modern ruby can do any of those, though in 1.8 or earlier it could do fewer, and less well.

Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster? by inopinatus on Thursday February 11, 2021 @08:44AM (#26101408)
Ruby does all of those things. The story sounds ancient, and even then a consequence of naive production design far more than any emergent property of language.
Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster? by sciurus on Thursday February 11, 2021 @08:38AM (#26101341)
> You can get around it by using async instead of blocking, using fibers which don't block, or using a thread pool so other threads can keep serving.

The typical approach for Ruby, Python, and similar languages is just to run more processes.

Re:Why Wasn't Ruby 3 Faster? by throwaway189262 on Friday February 12, 2021 @07:03AM (#26112748)
Ah just like the 80's