Forum: Ruby Static v. dynamic typing

Announcement (2017-05-07): is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see and for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Christopher Dunn (Guest)
on 2006-03-03 01:54
(Received via mailing list)
> Ruby is SLOW! Even compared to Python.

i've never had a problem with this and am routinely process files
40mb to 3gb - one only has to use c extensions.

That's true. You can always fall back on an extension. The thing is, I
actually prefer Python for C++ proto-typing. It maps so well to C++,
and Boost.

why do you see dynamic typing as a contributor to slowdown?

I'm no expert. There were interesting remarks on this point from the
of Boo. This is from the Boo FAQ:
Performance: since it is statically typed, can I expect a performance
or close to c# or


At the Digital Mars D language website (D is the way C++ should be)
there is
a comment that a compiler writer should have had more input into the
of C++. D is blazingly fast, but significantly easier to read and to
than C++. It also includes integrated testing and design-by-contract.

So 'agile' does not have to mean 'slow'.

> Boo and Ocaml are examples of fast, agile languages, and if more companies
> would adopt them, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

ocaml is very good - but it's a massive paradigm shift for most people's
thought train... most real world problems are imperitive.

Ruby is quite a paradigm shift itself! Continuations are mind-blowing.
I love the whole concept.

What I'm saying is that the author of Boo, by realizing the difference
between dynamic-typing and type-inferencing, achieved the best of both
Mc Osten (Guest)
on 2006-03-03 14:01
(Received via mailing list)
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:53:06 +0900, Christopher Dunn wrote:

> why do you see dynamic typing as a contributor to slowdown?

Lisp is dynamic typed, but there are Lisp compilers with C-like
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.