Chris Seaton @ VMSS16: JRuby+Truffle: Why it’s Important to Optimise the Tricky Parts
softdevteamuk2 HN recommenders · 2016–2019
5K views · talk · dated · Uploaded 2016-07-07
Chris Seaton talks about JRuby+Truffle, explaining how the Truffle and Graal combination optimises the tricky parts of Ruby and why it outperforms other Ruby implementations.
HN recommends it for specifics on how Truffle and Graal achieve strong dynamic-language performance.
53:22Ruby Conf 12 - Y Not- Adventures in Functional Programming by Jim Weirich
Confreaks
2:25:52The spelled-out intro to neural networks and backpropagation: building micrograd
Andrej Karpathy
49:55How Python was Shaped by leaky Internals, Armin Ronacher, Flask framework
Видео с мероприятий {speach!
38:47RailsConf 2014 - All the Little Things by Sandi Metz
Confreaks
26:53What the heck is the event loop anyway? | Philip Roberts | JSConf EU
JSConf
36:45Rich Harris - Rethinking reactivity
You Gotta Love Frontend
1:12:27CppCon 2015: Andrei Alexandrescu “std::allocator...”
CppCon
51:18Lexical Scanning in Go - Rob Pike
GoogleFOSSSydney
3 comments from Hacker News
Chris Seaton gave this talk recently about JRuby+Truffle and some specifics about how it optimises so well compared to other Ruby implementations. [VIDEO] Previous discussion [LINK]
I hear the Truffle+Graal combination is getting very good results about Ruby. Here is video about it (pointed to the missing-method example): [1] They're hitting 35x in some benchmarks [2]. Most benefits being in workloads where Ruby has to continuously talk to C; the result-passing part gets compiled away. It is available in Java 9, if I'm not mistaken. LLVM IR bytecode ingestion is in preparations too [3]. [1] [VIDEO] [2] [LINK] [3] [LINK]
> I understand that a JIT engine cant do this, due to speed. Most serious JIT engines do! For example V8, LuaJIT, Graal, C2. > But would be surprised that a LLVM compiler with a custom-designed heuristic for specific optimizations cant manage this. Rubinius for example tried writing custom optimisations like you're describing and didn't get very far. LLVM is not designed for these kind of optimisations - it understands memory reads and writes, not high-level semantic information about arrays and objects. In practice, it just doesn't seem to work. As I say I think it's a bare minimum for making a dynamic language genuinely fast. I gave a lecture about this [VIDEO] .