On 9/14/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:
It’s a perfectly natural desire to want to compare languages. To do that
requires micro-benchmarks that will execute in all of the languages. But
I think you’re missing my point,
well I did, was not clear to me sorry
which is that Ruby is slower than the
other dynamic languages on microbenchmarks because the implementation of
Ruby hasn’t been performance-tuned to the extent that Perl, Python and
PHP have been tuned.
which does not mean that I agree
It’s not, as far as I can tell, because of anything
fundamental in the syntax or semantics of the Ruby language that
prohibits that tuning.
So rather than whine about advocacy or say “I looked at the algorithms
they use just once, that was enough”, why not look at the algorithms
they use and tune the Ruby interpreter so it executes those algorithms
as efficiently as Perl, PHP and Python?
Did I whine? yes if you want so, I whine about that site because it is
That has nothing to do with ruby BTW.
Furthermore I think that it would be a bad idea to optimize ruby that
think ruby shall be optimized the ruby way, but only future will tell.
Benchmarketing is a fact of life
in the “computer industry”. Fortunes are made and lost because one gizmo
is faster than another gizmo on some “meaningless benchmark”.
Shall we not “whine” about what does not please us? I thank we shall!
- I don’t see any fundamental reason why Ruby can’t be as fast as Perl,
Python, or PHP.
- It isn’t there yet.
Maybe but that is not a reason to accept bad measurements, especially
because it will not put it there!
But I guess we have a very opposed view about benchmarking, well that is
good thing too
Deux choses sont infinies : l’univers et la bÃªtise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l’univers, je n’en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.