

Eliminating GIL in Ruby Through Hardware Transactional Memory (2013) - Nowaker
http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_person_subpage.php?id=4800

======
scott_s
A more recent version of the work:
[http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_person_subp...](http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_person_subpage.php?id=5206)

I saw the first author of this paper present this work in my building about
six months ago. Myself and others were impressed with both their results, and
the rigor in their analysis. They experiment on multiple hardware platforms,
and even compare against other VMs. In short, this is what good systems
research looks like.

Note that the page I linked to has both the full paper and the slides from
their conference talk. I should also disclose that I also work for IBM
Research, so I may have some bias in liking this paper.

(Copying a comment I made on an older submission; that may be why this poster
submitted the older research report.)

~~~
dakull
Darn - I'm still mad about Intel's TSX-HTM bug[0]. I really wanted to compile
this and play with it.

[0] - [http://techreport.com/news/26911/errata-prompts-intel-to-
dis...](http://techreport.com/news/26911/errata-prompts-intel-to-disable-tsx-
in-haswell-early-broadwell-cpus)

------
mperham
I summarized this paper in my blog if anyone wants a higher-level overview of
what it means:

[http://www.mikeperham.com/2013/12/31/rubys-gil-and-
transacti...](http://www.mikeperham.com/2013/12/31/rubys-gil-and-
transactional-memory/)

------
bsaul
Is it me or does anyone here thinks that with the recent progress in static
compiled language in user-friendliness, the path of optimizing the ugly parts
of dynamic languages outside of the language design itself is a waste of time
?

Note : not saying this research isn't interesting, because it may lead to many
different uses. Just about the example chosen itself.

~~~
jshen
I have used many of the fancy staticly typed languages and still find dynamic
languages more productive, and more accessible to a larger range of people.

~~~
NotAtWork
I only find them more productive until about 300-500 LoC.

It's about at that point, particularly if there's multiple files, that I find
myself suddenly wishing for stronger type systems.

That being said, most things I write (outside of work) aren't that long, and
you can get started faster in dynamic languages.

~~~
jshen
I haven't felt any improvement in productivity at higher KLOC counts with
statically typed languages in my coding. I've also worked at several large
companies and have watched teams using both types of languages, and I have not
seen more productivity from those using statically typed languages.

More importantly, there is no conclusive empirical evidence either way.

~~~
cantankerous
Which statically-typed languages are you using?

~~~
jshen
I've used many of them. Java, Scala, Haskell, ocaml, etc.

Also, in the open source world there is no visible difference in robustness or
productivity.

Edit: I forgot to mention go, and I thought HN was better than down voting
someone that has a different opinion.

~~~
jgalt212
jshen: I feel your pain. I think there's been too much down-voting by the
karma bullies on HN lately, and I think that's the number one reason there's
been less comments on HN.

Of course, there are folks who will feel that even though there are less
comments lately the level of discourse is higher.

------
Joyfield
...on a mainframe....

~~~
pjmlp
Ruby is the new RPG! :)

