The past two weeks have been another busy bi-week in terms of Ruby releases and community activity. I'd like to start out with a couple of big release announcements and a mailing list posting and then move on to two big events.

Eric and Ryan have kept up the pace with new releases of ParseTree and ZenTest, along with a teaser about an upcoming addition to ZenTest.

Zed Shaw has been hard at work on Mongrel, punching out a couple of new releases. He's shooting for a 0.4 release quite soon now.

The Rails team also has been busy, whipping out both 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 releases.

James Gray announced that he's hit the bottom of his Ruby Quiz submission stack and asked for new submissions. A number of responses came in, and he's well stocked now for quite a while. The first quiz that appeared after the call for submissions was quite popular. I'm responsible for the next one. Hopefully, it will draw as much attention.

Finally, it's worth noting that the excellent Ruby for Rails book, by David Alan Black, now is available in PDF and should be hitting the bookstores at the beginning of May. This is an excellent book and may claim the top spot in my personal list of the best Ruby books available.

Coverity has developed a suite of static code analysis tools for C and C++. They're currently working under a contract with the Department of Homeland Security to analyze the code bases of a number of important open-source tools. Members of the projects Coverity is working with have had good things to say about the process. And many projects are showing substantial improvement.

Ruby is a recent addition to Coverity's list. Although it's nice to see Ruby accorded that kind of respect, the addition is good in two other ways. First, it allows us to compare the Perl, Python and Ruby code bases. This point isn't really important, but it is interesting. Second, it gives the Ruby core team some targets to watch as new releases approach.

Perl and Python have been on the list longer than Ruby has, and both are showing improvement. Their original measurements are shown below:

Lang	LoC		orig defects	defect rate

Perl	485,001		89		0.185
Python	273,980		96		0.350

The next table shows the current measurements for Perl and Python, with Ruby's first (and current) measurements added.

Lang	LoC		cur defects	defect rate

Perl	485,001		67		0.138
Python	273,980		14		0.051
Ruby	258,908		30		0.116

It's pretty cool to see that the Perl and Python communities have done a good job of correcting the errors that Coverity found in the code bases. It's also interesting to see that Ruby compares well with the original Perl and Python defect rates. And, Ruby doesn't look too bad against their current defect rates either. In fact, it compares well with a lot of other projects out there, such as emacs, 0.133; gcc, 0.253; FreeBSD, 0.396; or Linux 2.6, 0.220.

Hopefully, we'll see a decrease in our defect rate over time, like most of the other projects on Coverity's report. To this end, we have a great example to follow--AMANDA. AMANDA started out with a defect rate of approximately 1.0. It currently looks like this:

Project		LoC	cur defects	defect rate

AMANDA		88,414	0		0.000

The difference is so great that a company involved in AMANDA development wrote an article about it that said, among other things:

Canada on Rails has been a big event in the Ruby community. Billed as the first international event focused on Rails, Canada on Rails has drawn a lot of attention and a lot of people. I've tried to gather up some of the coverage here.

Some notable non-Ruby names attended Canada on Rails, including Tim Bray, who wrote:

Ryan Davis kept collective notes using SubEthaEdit. Day 1 notes can be read here. My favorite comment was: "Eclipse: . . . Gateway drug for Java users."

Amy Hoy teased us with an initial post. Hopefully, more is coming soon. Alex Combas also provided excellent coverage on his blog.

Several of the speakers have posts up as well:

One of the rules I find myself being more and more concerned with following is "Make it right, then make it fast". The more I work with dynamic languages such as Ruby, the easier it becomes to follow this rule and the bigger the payoff becomes for doing so. In that mind, I'd like to discuss some fundamentals for optimizing Ruby code.

Any time you optimize, you need to follow some simple steps:

I'm not going to spend any time here talking about the first step. Hopefully, you've already got a handle on it. If not, refer to my last two articles, found here and here. They both talk about Test First programming and related topics.

Moving on to the second step, the Ruby profiler is easy to use, but it runs much more slowly than Ruby itself. To profile a program, simply do:

$ ruby -rprofile yourprog

This command produces a report that looks something like this trimmed version:

  %   cumulative   self              self     total
 time   seconds   seconds    calls  ms/call  ms/call  name
 15.00     0.15      0.15       45     3.33    65.33  Kernel.require
 14.00     0.29      0.14      532     0.26     0.45  Gem::Specification#copy_
  6.00     0.35      0.06      438     0.14     0.16  Kernel.dup
  6.00     0.41      0.06       74     0.81    15.27  Array#each
  4.00     0.45      0.04      226     0.18     0.27  String#gsub!
  3.00     0.48      0.03       82     0.37     0.37  String#gsub

The meaning of each column is as follows:

As you profile code, you will see a lot of methods that you can't do much about, such as Kernel.dup. You'll also see some that are more fruitful for you to pursue.

Benchmarking different options is at the heart of optimizing. Fortunately, it's easy to do and the output is easy to read. Here's a quick example that benchmarks different kinds of iterators and looping in Ruby:

require 'benchmark'

n = 10_000_000

Benchmark.bm(15) do |x|
  x.report("for loop:") { for i in 1..n; a = "1"; end }
  x.report("times:") { n.times do ; a = "1"; end }
  x.report("upto:") { 1.upto(n) do ; a = "1"; end }
end

Running this code generates a report like this one:

                     user     system      total        real
for loop:        3.060000   0.000000   3.060000 (  3.137070)
times:           3.290000   0.000000   3.290000 (  3.308736)
upto:            3.370000   0.000000   3.370000 (  3.372559)

This report shows that if speed matters, you probably want to use a for loop, although it won't make a huge difference. Choosing the right algorithm for the right method usually is where you get your biggest win, so spend your time on profiling and benchmarking.

If you absolutely have to go to another language, Ruby has a very clean interface for writing and using C extensions. But even it probably is too much work when you could use RubyInLine instead. RubyInline allows you to write C code within your Ruby program. This code is compiled and linked to your program, potentially representing a huge speed increase. Ryan's documentation shows a 4x speed up between:

  def factorial(n)
    f = 1
    n.downto(2) { |x| f *= x }
    f
  end

and

  inline do |builder|
    builder.c "
    long factorial_c(int max) {
      int i=max, result=1;
      while (i >= 2) { result *= i--; }
      return result;
    }"
  end

If you've gotten all you can out of choosing your algorithms well, this might be your last, best hope.