IssueRaiser

The first "pain point" you mention is "performance" but earlier you were saying that the only major changes were a better GC and JIT?

The first "pain point" you mention is "performance" but earlier you were saying that the only major changes were a better GC and JIT? I don't see how that follows. What's odd is that "performance, tooling, dependency hell, unicode support, ... co-routines ... generators" reads like a list of things that have been worked on heavily since 1.8. Performance has been a major focus of every release since 1.9.1; integrating Rubygems considerably helped with tooling and dependency issues; encoding-aware strings were a major feature of 1.9; coroutines and generators can be implemented more effectively with 1.9's Fibers.

Posted by djur on Jun 23, 2015, 7:18 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.6,000 issues0 comments

support (Other)

The first "pain point" you mention is "performance" but earlier you were saying that the only major changes were a better GC and JIT?

djurJun 23, 2015, 7:18 PM

The first "pain point" you mention is "performance" but earlier you were saying that the only major changes were a better GC and JIT? I don't see how that follows. What's odd is that "performance, tooling, dependency hell, unicode support, ... co-routines ... generators" reads like a list of things that have been worked on heavily since 1.8. Performance has been a major focus of every release since 1.9.1; integrating Rubygems considerably helped with tooling and dependency issues; encoding-aware strings were a major feature of 1.9; coroutines and generators can be implemented more effectively with 1.9's Fibers.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue