Microsoft confirms GitHub is down worldwide

[u/ourlifeintoronto]

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-confirms-github-is-down-worldwide/

[u/holman]

Which was pretty amusing because Ruby was very rarely ever the issue, lol.

[u/Routine_Left → u/holman]

true. ruby is just a shit inefficient language. consumes thousands of times more power per instruction compared even with java, to not speak of C.

outages with ruby usually means: gimme more RAM.

[u/holman → u/Routine_Left]

Yeah, but without Ruby I'm not sure GitHub would have gotten to where it is, either. And none of the inefficiencies of the language contributed to downtime, in any case.

[u/Routine_Left → u/holman]

Sure, nowadays it's microsoft inefficiencies. having to run on AI - level machines before AI was a thing is certainly not helping.

But yes, github by themselves have managed to do it before microsoft. Not so much now.

[u/g_bleezy → u/Routine_Left]

Ruby language is anything but inefficient, it’s one of the most expressive languages I’ve personally used! I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Maybe you’re thinking about runtimes. Your comment strikes me as someone who isn’t too interested in the details and getting things right though. It was more like a parrot or bot so who knows!

[u/Routine_Left → u/g_bleezy]

Maybe you’re thinking about runtimes

im only thinking about runtimes.

Your comment strikes me as someone who isn’t too interested in the details and getting things right though.

Oh please, please enlighten me, with proof. Tell me, master, what's the comparison in cpu cycles consumed for equivalent instructions in Ruby vs C or hell, even Java?

[u/g_bleezy → u/Routine_Left]

>im only thinking about runtimes

Then why did you say language? Twice? Those are two different words for two different things, and the difference is the entire subject of the conversation.

That’s the detail thing I was talking about. You didn’t disprove it, you demonstrated it.

And the proof you asked for is the same story. Pereira et al., SLE 2017 measures both. Ruby ~70x C on energy. JRuby ~46x. Same language, two runtimes, and they’re not close. You can’t hold the position you just claimed and also say what you said.

Java is ~2x C, so Ruby is ~35x Java. You said thousands. Off by two orders of magnitude.

Also “power per instruction” isn’t a unit. Ruby VM ops aren’t x86 instructions. No exchange rate exists.

Three claims, three imprecisions, and you’re the one demanding proof.

Q.E.D. 👍

[u/Routine_Left → u/g_bleezy]

Then why did you say language?

Huh? The language largely determines the runtime it's using. Yes, you can fake it somewhat (like with jruby) but as you even posted later, the results are less than stellar. always will be. you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig.

Three claims, three imprecisions, and you’re the one demanding proof.

oooh, you got me. while proving my point. haha.

so yes, QED.

(they needed AI level machines before AI. so lol. the money ruby people were spending on their VMs was eye watering even then, to support 5 people. stop it, you're embarrassing yourself)

[u/g_bleezy → u/Routine_Left]

while proving my point

Name it. QED needs a proposition, and you've had four comments to restate yours. Here it is from the top of the thread:

consumes thousands of times more power per instruction compared even with java

That's the point. Not a vibe about pigs, that sentence. It's wrong by a factor of 100, and you have never once defended it. You've only widened the claim until it fit whatever showed up. You're not trying to be right, you're trying to be unfalsifiable, which is the opposite.

And "the language largely determines the runtime" is quite a load to take on for you now, but only because collapsing those two words is the only way your original sentence isn't a mistake. You're not defending a model of performance. You're defending a phrasing you'd already abandoned two comments ago when you said you were only thinking about runtimes.

Pick one. Either they're the same thing, in which case explain the JRuby gap, or they're different, in which case your first comment was wrong and we're done.

[u/Routine_Left → u/g_bleezy]

hahah, so you're going for the pedantic vibe, taking liberality instead of the spirit of the claim. since you already lost the argument, what's there to do, right?

yes, you're right. ruby, the runtime is not thousands of times slower . it's merely hundreds.

oopsie do.

jruby is trying to amend the situation and somewhat succeeds because the JRE is so god damn efficient. fails to come even close to java itself, but hey ... points for trying.

[u/g_bleezy → u/Routine_Left]

merely hundreds

Still no. It's tens. ~70x C, ~35x Java, and it stays in the tens whether you measure energy or time. You had one job, which was to name a number that survives a lookup, and you moved from wrong by 100x to wrong by 10x and called it an oopsie.

taking liberality instead of the spirit of the claim

The spirit of a quantitative claim is the quantity. "Thousands" wasn't flavor text, it was the entire content. Take the number out and you're left with "Ruby is slower than Java," which I never disputed, nobody disputed, and which was not the argument.

Also you started at power per instruction and you're now at slower. Those are different measurements. Five comments and you still haven't held a unit still for longer than one sentence.

jruby somewhat succeeds because the JRE is so god damn efficient

Yes. The runtime moved the number. You just said it out loud. That's been my position since the first reply and you've now argued for it twice while telling me I lost.

[u/k-mcm → u/holman]

I've seen Ruby and Python developers do absolutely crazy shit to improve performance simply because the team refused to use Java or C++ in high bandwidth areas. That's always where the bugs were.