# For performance, write it in C

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [July 26, 2006, 10:50am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952 "2006-07-26T10:50:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:29am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/101 "2006-07-27T07:29:22Z")

</div>

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 01:59:37PM +0900, Chad P. wrote:

> > In fairness, if you’re judging it’s performance based on running it in  
> > Wine, that’s not really a fair comparison. 🙂
> 
> I’m judging it based on running it on Windows. My point is that  
> divorcing it from the only environment in which it runs (natively) is  
> less than strictly sporting of you, when trying to discuss its  
> performance characteristics (or lack thereof).

Wait… I did no such thing. All I said was that what interface  
sluggishness you get from Excel can’t be blamed on Excel. They’re  
performance characteristics that _can_ be divorced from Excel (because  
they’re Window’s own performance characteristic, not Excel’s). Argue  
those points, and you’re arguing about the wrong software.

But Wine is an emulator, and while it does a good job approaching the  
speed of Windows, it doesn’t hit it, nor can it hit it. You’re not  
comparing like with like. Now that’s far from sporting.

You’re argument it disingenuous. Consider Cygwin running on Windows  
compared to FreeBSD running on the same machine. I can make this  
comparison because the machine I’m currently using dual-boots such a  
setup. I run many of the same applications under Cygwin as I do under  
FreeBSD on the same box. Those same applications running under Cygwin  
are noticably slower than the native equivalents under FreeBSD. Do I  
blame the software I’m running under Cygwin for being slow? No, because  
I’m well aware that it zips along in its native environment. Do a blame  
Cygwin? No, because it does an awful lot of work to trick the software  
running under it that it’s running on a \*nix. Do I blame Windows? No,  
because I use some of that software–gcc being an example–natively  
under Windows and it performs just as well as when it’s ran natively  
under FreeBSD. Bringing Wine in is a red herring. Software cannot be  
blamed for the environment it’s executed in.

K.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:45am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/102 "2006-07-27T07:45:24Z")

</div>

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 02:26:37PM +0900, Keith G. wrote:

> they’re Window’s own performance characteristic, not Excel’s). Argue  
> those points, and you’re arguing about the wrong software.

Design decisions that involve interfacing with interface software that  
sucks is related to the software under discussion – and not all of the  
interface is entirely delegated to Windows, either. No software can be  
evaluated for its performance characteristics separate from its  
environment except insofar as it runs without that environment.

> But Wine is an emulator, and while it does a good job approaching the  
> speed of Windows, it doesn’t hit it, nor can it hit it. You’re not  
> comparing like with like. Now that’s far from sporting.

Actually, no, it’s not an emulator. It’s a set of libraries (or a  
single library – I’m a little sketchy on the details) that provides the  
same API as Windows software finds in a Windows environment. An  
emulator actually creates a faux/copy version of the environment it’s  
emulating. It is to Linux compared with Unix as an actual emulator is  
to Cygwin compared with Unix: one is a differing implementation and the  
other is an emulator.

. . . and, in fact, there are things that run faster via Wine on Linux  
than natively on Windows.

[snip]

> under FreeBSD. Bringing Wine in is a red herring. Software cannot be  
> blamed for the environment it’s executed in.

I didn’t bring it up. You did. I made a comment about Excel not  
working in Linux as a bit of a joke, attempting to make the point that  
saying Excel performance can be evaluated separately from its dependence  
on Windows doesn’t strike me as useful.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 7:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/103 "2006-07-27T07:23:12Z")

</div>

Kroeger, Simon (ext) wrote:

> > real 473m45.370s
> 
> ## $size = (ARGV.shift || 5).to\_i $latins = [] $latins.each do |latin| $perms.each do |perm| perm.each{|p| puts $out[latin[p]]} puts end end
> 
> (does someone has a nicer/even faster version?)

Here’s a much slower version that has no ‘require’.

Wd = ARGV.pop.to\_i  
$board = []

# Generate all possible valid rows.

Rows = (0…Wd\*\*Wd).map{|n| n.to\_s(Wd).rjust(Wd,‘0’)}.  
reject{|s| s=~/(.).\*\1/}.map{|s| s.split(//).map{|n| n.to\_i + 1} }

def check( ary, n )  
ary[0,n+1].transpose.all?{|x| x.size == x.uniq.size }  
end

def add\_a\_row( row\_num )  
if Wd == row\_num  
puts $board.map{|row| row.join}.join(’:’)  
else  
Rows.size.times { |i|  
$board[row\_num] = Rows[i]  
if check( $board, row\_num )  
add\_a\_row( row\_num + 1 )  
end  
}  
end  
end

add\_a\_row 0

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 9:56am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/104 "2006-07-27T09:56:50Z")

</div>

On my machine it took around 33 seconds but I think that I can improve  
it a little, besides I have to test the results first.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 11:22am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/105 "2006-07-27T11:22:07Z")

</div>

On Wednesday 26 July 2006 23:13, Chad P. wrote:

> > I recently rewrote an 830 line Java/  
> > Hibernate web service client as 67 lines of Ruby, in about an hour.  
> > With that kind of productivity, performance can go to hell!
> 
> With a 92% cut in code weight, I can certainly sympathize with that  
> sentiment. Wow.

Even the last remaining member of the Anti-Ruby Defence League in my  
office  
admitted (reluctantly) that it was impressive!

Ashley

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 11:15am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/106 "2006-07-27T11:15:15Z")

</div>

On Thursday 27 July 2006 05:23, Francis C. wrote:

> especially arrays- declare them outside your inner loop and re-use them  
> with Array#clear.

Nice MD5 trick! I’ll remember that. Fortunately the files that need  
duplicate elimination are really small, so I won’t need to resort to  
that.  
But I’ll remember it for future reference.

> Obviously I haven’t seen your code or your data, but if the Ruby app is  
> memory-bus-bound, then this approach may make your problem worse, not  
> better.

Hadn’t thought of that, good point…

> Good luck. I recently got a Ruby program that aggregates several LDAP  
> directory-pulls with about a million entries down from a few hours to a  
> few seconds, without having to drop into C. It can be done, and it’s  
> kindof fun too.

Next time I get a morning free I might apply some of the tweaks that  
have been  
suggested. Might be interested to see how much I can improve the  
performance.

Cheers  
Ashley

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/107 "2006-07-27T22:48:23Z")

</div>

Hal F. wrote:

> I won a bet once from a friend. We wrote comparable programs in  
> Java and C++ (some arbitrary math in a loop running a bazillion  
> times).
> 
> With defaults on both compiles, the Java was actually _faster_  
> than the C++. Even I didn’t expect that. But as I said, this  
> sort of thing is highly dependent on many different factors.
> 
> Hal

Sometimes when we look at different workloads we can see the  
performance crossover when relatively slow startup is overcome, code  
JIT’d and adaptive optimisation kicks in

[http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/fulldata.php?test=nbody&p1=java-0&p2=gcc-0&p3=clean-0&p4=java-0](http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/fulldata.php?test=nbody&p1=java-0&p2=gcc-0&p3=clean-0&p4=java-0)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 1:13am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/108 "2006-07-28T01:13:29Z")

</div>

Sorry for coming late to the party.

On Jul 26, 2006, at 1:47 AM, Peter H. wrote:

> Whenever the question of performance comes up with scripting  
> languages such as Ruby, Perl or Python there will be people whose  
> response can be summarised as “Write it in C”.

The conclusion is wrong in the general case. Suppose that, instead  
of computing permutations, your task had been to read ten million  
lines of textual log files and track statistics about certain kinds  
of events coded in there. I bet a version coded in perl, making  
straightforward uses of regexes and hashes, would have performance  
that would be very hard to match in C or any other language. Ruby  
would be a little slower I bet just because Perl’s regex engine is so  
highly-tuned, although it’s been claimed Oniguruma is faster.

So, first gripe: C is faster than Ruby _in certain problem domains_.  
In others, it’s not.

Second gripe. The notion of doing a wholesale rewrite in C is almost  
certainly wrong. In fact, the notion of doing any kind of serious  
hacking, without doing some measuring first, is almost always wrong.  
The _right_ way to build software that performs well is to write a  
natural, idiomatic implementation, trying to avoid stupid design  
errors but not worrying too much about performance. If it’s fast  
enough, you’re done. If it’s not fast enough, don’t write another  
line of code till you’ve used used a profiler and understand what the  
problem is. If in fact this is the kind of a problem where C is  
going to do better, chances are you only have to replace 10% of your  
code to get 90% of the available speedup.

And don’t remember to budget downstream maintenance time for the  
memory-allocation errors and libc dependencies and so on that cause C  
programs to be subject to periodic downstream crashes.

-Tim

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 5:07pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/109 "2006-07-27T17:07:58Z")

</div>

removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid writes:

> Are there  
> good benchmarks for OO languages? Or dynamic languages? Are there good  
> benchmarks that could actually measure the types of uses I need, where I’m  
> building a web front end to a DB store? I don’t know about you, but my job  
> has never involved fractals.

There was posted here a few weeks ago, in a thread on rails  
performance, a benchmark that measured how fast a “hello world” web  
app could respond under heavy load. This doesn’t measure the DB back  
end piece, of course, but it’s a little closer to useful for you than  
Mandelbrot calculations.

In fact, digging through Google desktop searches of my recently  
visited web pages finds it here:

[http://www.usenetbinaries.com/doc/Web\_Platform\_Benchmarks.html](http://www.usenetbinaries.com/doc/Web_Platform_Benchmarks.html)

Rails loses this contest big-time. Perl CGI scripts even beat a Rails  
FastCGI setup. Rails FastCGI is about 15 times slower than plain ruby  
FastCGI.

Also, it seems clear that at least for very simple web apps, PHP 4 to  
PHP 5 is a distinct performance regression.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 4:06am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/110 "2006-07-28T04:06:13Z")

</div>

Chad P. wrote:

> The canonical example for comparison, I suppose, is the Java VM vs. the  
> Perl JIT compiler. In Java, the source is compiled to bytecode and  
> stored. In Perl, the source remains in source form, and is stored as  
> ASCII (or whatever). When execution happens with Java, the VM actually  
> interprets the bytecode. Java bytecode is compiled for a virtual  
> computer system (the “virtual machine”), which then runs the code as  
> though it were native binary compiled for this virtual machine. That  
> virtual machine is, from the perspective of the OS, an interpreter,  
> however. Thus, Java is generally half-compiled and half-interpreted,  
> which speeds up the interpretation process.

Huh? Small-system (PDA, etc.) Java implementations may use bytecode  
interpreters, but the mainstream ones started out using JIT, and were  
later upgraded to start execution by interpreting, and then, if and when  
it observes that a given segment is being repeatedly executed, compile  
it to native code.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 3:50am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/111 "2006-07-28T03:50:22Z")

</div>

David P. wrote:

> There are some applications that will never perform as in Java (e.g.,  
> stuff that’s heavily oriented to bit manipulation.) But for many  
> classes of applications (e.g., spreadsheets) Java can perform as well  
> as C.

Actually, it’s notorious that a Sieve of Eratosthenes using the  
respective Bitset classes is faster in Java than in C++.

I don’t get it, either, but I’ve verified it myself.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 7:18am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/112 "2006-07-28T07:18:56Z")

</div>

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:05:11AM +0900, John W. Kennedy wrote:

> > which speeds up the interpretation process.
> 
> Huh? Small-system (PDA, etc.) Java implementations may use bytecode  
> interpreters, but the mainstream ones started out using JIT, and were  
> later upgraded to start execution by interpreting, and then, if and when  
> it observes that a given segment is being repeatedly executed, compile  
> it to native code.

Wait . . . what? When some Java applet (for example) is sent over an  
HTTP connection to your computer to be executed cient-side, it is NOT  
just source code. Similarly, when you install a Java application, it  
too is NOT simply copied onto the system in source code form. It’s  
compiled to bytecode (or whatever the hell you want to call it) and  
distributed thusly, for the JVM to run it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 4:32am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/113 "2006-07-28T04:32:24Z")

</div>

Chad P. wrote:

> Ada, on the other hand – for circumstances in which it is most commonly  
> employed (embedded systems, et cetera), it does indeed tend to kick C’s  
> behind a bit. That may have more to do with compiler optimization than  
> language spec, though.

Language specs mean a good deal, actually. C semantics (except in C99,  
/if/ the restrict keyword is consistently used by the coder and  
seriously implemented by the optimizer) lead to unnecessarily slow  
object code in many common cases. Ada’s in-language support of tasking  
also makes it easier for the compiler to know whether a segment of code  
will or will not be multithreaded, which allows the compiler to optimize  
more aggressively in many instances.

These are two of the reasons that so many C compilers include an  
“optimize beyond safe limits” switch.

Indeed, many aspects of C’s design cause optimization problems.  
0-terminated strings were dandy on 8-bit processors, but the S/370  
actually had to add some new opcodes just to make strcpy and strcmp  
tolerably fast.

Ada has another advantage in that the language design strongly  
encourages designing global optimization into the compiler, whereas the  
C tradition of make files tends to discourage it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 7:34am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/114 "2006-07-28T07:34:32Z")

</div>

On 7/28/06, Chad P. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> Wait . . . what? When some Java applet (for example) is sent over an  
> HTTP connection to your computer to be executed cient-side, it is NOT  
> just source code. Similarly, when you install a Java application, it  
> too is NOT simply copied onto the system in source code form. It’s  
> compiled to bytecode (or whatever the hell you want to call it) and  
> distributed thusly, for the JVM to run it.

Interpretation does not necessarily mean raw source code is being  
processed.  
Even interpreters parse raw source into a form they can understand.  
Interpretation in the Java VM comes in the form of bytecode  
interpretation,  
so called because instead of the system CPU running native operations  
it’s  
running another process that steps through the bytecodes. This is what’s  
typically called “interpreted mode” in the JVM. However every VM since  
Java  
1.3 has taken the next step at run time and compiled that bytecode into  
native processor instructions, so that the interpreter is no longer  
involved  
for those compiled pieces.

Bytecode is what’s distributed, yes, but it’s little more than  
pre-parsed  
and lightly optimized source code. You can convert it back to source, if  
you  
like. Your definition of “interpreted” is too narrow.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 7:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/115 "2006-07-28T07:28:10Z")

</div>

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:30:05AM +0900, John W. Kennedy wrote:

> Language specs mean a good deal, actually.

I didn’t say they didn’t. I said only that _in this case_ it _may_ be  
that it’s more a matter of compiler optimization than language spec. I  
don’t know enough about Ada to be able to comment authoritatively on the  
comparison, but I certainly do know that language design can have an  
effect (via the requirements it imposes on the implementation).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 7:37am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/116 "2006-07-28T07:37:53Z")

</div>

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:32:20PM +0900, Charles O Nutter wrote:

> Interpretation does not necessarily mean raw source code is being processed.  
> and lightly optimized source code. You can convert it back to source, if you  
> like. Your definition of “interpreted” is too narrow.

How do you figure? You just reiterated, in different words, everything  
I said, then held it up as “proof” I’m “wrong”. I think you’re  
violently agreeing with me, or something, and don’t realize it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 7:54am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/117 "2006-07-28T07:54:05Z")

</div>

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:34:21PM +0900, Chad P. wrote:

> > > distributed thusly, for the JVM to run it.
> > 
> > Bytecode is what’s distributed, yes, but it’s little more than pre-parsed  
> > and lightly optimized source code. You can convert it back to source, if you  
> > like. Your definition of “interpreted” is too narrow.
> 
> How do you figure? You just reiterated, in different words, everything  
> I said, then held it up as “proof” I’m “wrong”. I think you’re  
> violently agreeing with me, or something, and don’t realize it.

No, just that you left out the bit about JIT compilation into native  
code.

K.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 9:35am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/118 "2006-07-28T09:35:37Z")

</div>

On Jul 26, 2006, at 2:23 AM, Pit C. wrote:

> Peter H. schrieb:
> 
> > (Example of Perl and C Code)
> 
> Peter, is there any chance you could test your program with Ruby  
> Inline?
> 
> [http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubyinline](http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubyinline)
> 
> I’m on Windows, so I can’t use Ruby Inline (+1 for MinGW btw 🙂

Others have reported being able to use inline on windows… why can’t  
you?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 9:35am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/119 "2006-07-28T09:35:50Z")

</div>

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:53:09PM +0900, Keith G. wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:34:21PM +0900, Chad P. wrote:
> 
> > How do you figure? You just reiterated, in different words, everything  
> > I said, then held it up as “proof” I’m “wrong”. I think you’re  
> > violently agreeing with me, or something, and don’t realize it.
> 
> No, just that you left out the bit about JIT compilation into native  
> code.

Gee willickers, I’m sorry I didn’t use the exact phrasing you wanted me  
to. Maybe next time, though, you won’t claim the bits I said that  
didn’t actually have anything to do with your actual complaint were  
wrong.

Y’know, screw it. Be an ass if you like. I’m done with this subthread.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/90ced4/32.png) [@tekhne](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tekhne)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 11:37am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952/120 "2006-07-28T11:37:12Z")

</div>

Ryan D. schrieb:

> On Jul 26, 2006, at 2:23 AM, Pit C. wrote:
> 
> > I’m on Windows, so I can’t use Ruby Inline (+1 for MinGW btw 🙂
> 
> Others have reported being able to use inline on windows… why can’t you?

Ryan, googling for

“ruby inline” windows

gave me no usable hint among the first 50 results besides using cygwin.  
Do you have a link to the reports you mention?

Maybe I should have written that giving that I’m using the One Click  
Installer, don’t have the Windows compiler toolchain, and am not willing  
to use cygwin, I can’t use Ruby Inline. Is this better?

But, instead I might try to use Ruby Inline with MinGW, so thanks for  
the question.

Regards,  
Pit

[Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952.md?page=5)

[Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/for-performance-write-it-in-c/99952.md?page=7)