first try on faster bundle exec ruby

[grosser]

as per discussion in #2117

normal ruby:
time ruby -rbundler/setup -e 'puts "foo"' --> 2.3s

bundle exec with patch:
time bundle exec ruby -e 'puts "foo"' --> 2.9s

bundle exec without patch:
time bundle exec ruby -e 'puts "foo"' --> 4.0s

the time diff in case 2 is because rubygems is loaded once for the executable and once for the exec ruby run. Getting rid of it like the hub gem does might be a solution, but still kind of nasty...

I'm trying to preserve the original ARGV, so that e.g. ruby -e '' does not blow up, maybe there is a better way of doing this...

[ghost]

How can I help test this pull request? I'd really like to see that speed improvement in bundler! :)

[indirect]

@Rohit, I guess just by applying this patch and doing some benchmarking on bundle exec? I'm going to try to test this out myself soon.

[grosser]

just cleaned it up a bit by using exec with multiple arguments :)

[indirect]

This patch only speeds things up if you're running bundle exec ruby foo. I don't know about you, but that basically never happens to me or anyone that I have ever seen use Bundler. In fact, if you're running bundle exec ruby foo, why not just run ruby -rbundler/setup foo? It seems like it's going to provide the same result.

[grosser]

that's exactly the point :D
afaik most people do not know that they are the same and I was never 100%
sure that they are,
and I know plenty people and scripts that run bundle exec ruby foo

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:39 PM, André Arko [email protected]:

This patch only speeds things up if you're running bundle exec ruby foo.
I don't know about you, but that basically never happens to me or anyone
that I have ever seen use Bundler. In fact, if you're running bundle exec
ruby foo, why not just run ruby -rbundler/setup foo? It seems like it's
going to provide the same result.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/2118#issuecomment-10536469.