HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
smarr
are-we-fast-yet
Java2016–2026
smarr / are-we-fast-yet

are-we-fast-yet

Are We Fast Yet? Comparing Language Implementations with Objects, Closures, and Arrays

Testing & Quality
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
8Distinct people
19Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
420GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Are We Fast Yet? Comparing Language Implementations with Objects, Closures, and Arrays

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 7:24:48 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year19 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-01-05 17:57:09 UTC to 2026-09-25 15:02:32 UTC.

0123452016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 2 submissions, 3 comments20162017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments20212022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC523
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC413
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

5 sources
ksec·Dec 26, 2016
https://github.com/smarr/are-we-fast-yet It is not about optimal performance. Ruby, or specifically MRI here, is anywhere between 20-100x slower. And there are other dynamic languages that is much faster then Ruby. If Ruby is only 2-10x slower no one would complain. But right now it is so far off the chart that is why you see a shrinking usage of Ruby.
In Ruby 2.4.0 Released
eregon·Nov 29, 2016
On the other hand, I am confident it's written in a much nicer way than most NES emulators (look at cpu.rb/ppu.rb). The goal of optcarrot is explicitly not to be the "practical"or "the fastest NES emulator". From https://github.com/mame/optcarrot > NOTE: We do not aim to create a practical NES emulator. There have been already many great emulators available. We recommend you use another emulator if you just want to play a game. JRuby+Truffle's performance is not bad compared to other languages: https://github.com/smarr/are-we-fast-yet#current-status
In Running Optcarrot, a Ruby NES Emulator, at 150 Fps with the GUI
smarr·Aug 18, 2016
A few of the smaller benchmarks have been ported to C++ already: https://github.com/smarr/are-we-fast-yet/tree/wip/cpp/benchm... But the bigger ones are not yet (so, no results yet). One of the important questions to answer first is how the mapping should be done. A naive version using new/delete/smartpointers is going to have performance issues. Other options would be to use arena allocators and completely remove memory management overhead from the equation. Depending on what comparison/C++ usage scenario is desired, both options would be useful.
In Cross-Language Compiler Benchmarking

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.