
TechEmpower Framework Benchmarks Round 15 Results - steveklabnik
https://www.techempower.com/blog/2018/02/14/framework-benchmarks-round-15/
======
kodablah
I mean, I know it goes without saying, but statically typed languages are
beating the pants off of dynamic languages. In JSON serialization, you have to
go quite far down to get the first dynamic language one, japronto, and it's
not even completely written in the language. Ha. All the others have pure dyn
languages down further than that.

Now, obviously micro-benchmarks are nothing to rely on and most of us have
other bottlenecks and these minor differences are negligible in comparison.
But why not be faster if you can with little ergonomic cost these days? Put a
different way, and probably the language-decision question of the current
times: Which is improving faster, the ergonomics of statically typed languages
or the performance of dynamically typed languages?

As langs like Crystal and optionally-typed Dart feel more dynamic and are
still quick to get up to speed on, why must we persist with dynamic languages?
Of course I'm biased, but it sure annoys me that the ML world stays in Python.
/rant

~~~
Spartan-S63
I would argue that statically typed languages aren't really an ergonomic cost.
The amount of testing I have to do to be confident in a dynamically typed
language is quite unergonomic. Having to add types is a small cost in
comparison to the tests I don't have to write. Additionally, knowing the type
allows me to be able to reason better about the code I write; it's more
predictable.

Ultimately, I like statically typed languages miles better than dynamically
typed ones. They're also more performant and I like that.

------
ksec
Rails finally getting a respectable results.

Thanks to @nateberkopec.

