> Ruby is SLOW! Even compared to Python. i've never had a problem with this and am routinely process files ranging from 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++, STL, 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 author of Boo. This is from the Boo FAQ: Performance: since it is statically typed, can I expect a performance equal or close to c# or vb.net? Yes. 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 design of C++. D is blazingly fast, but significantly easier to read and to code 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 worlds.
on 2006-03-03 01:54
on 2006-03-03 14:01
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 performances.