Seconded. My use case might be running my own Ruby scripts faster, but they don't need to run any faster so it's not worth the trouble of setting up a development environment, especially one that requires a compilation step.
It would be a totally different thing if it could run Rails, which is one of the things I do in my job. The speedup would probably justify using it, especially when running tests on my laptop. My customers are perfectly happy with the performance of Rails on their servers. Same with the ones using Python with Django.
> It would be a totally different thing if it could run Rails, which is one of the things I do in my job.
At https://heiioncall.com/ we combine the two and use Rails for the human-facing parts, and Crystal for the machine-facing parts (inbound API server calls, and outbound HTTP probes). For us, the number of machine-facing requests per second is so many orders of magnitude higher than human-facing requests that Crystal's performance and lower footprint is valuable there. While on the other hand, the conveniences of Ruby on Rails are still great for a conventional human-facing web and mobile application.
Yeah,I've found that for the vast majority of Rails apps, the bottleneck is the database, not Ruby. Even a 100x speed up in the application code would have very little end user impact on performance in most cases.
It would be a totally different thing if it could run Rails, which is one of the things I do in my job. The speedup would probably justify using it, especially when running tests on my laptop. My customers are perfectly happy with the performance of Rails on their servers. Same with the ones using Python with Django.