[ruby-core:24041] Re: [ANN] meeting log of RubyDeveloperKaigi20090622

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto<[e-mail]> wro=
te:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ruby-core:23995] Re: [ANN] meeting log of RubyDeveloperK=
aigi20090622"
> =A0 =A0on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:19:42 +0900, Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat=
.net> writes:
>
> |Since Time is no longer bound by epoch and supports timezones, is there
> |future need for DateTime? Could it be reimplemented in terms of Time?
>
> Date and DateTime has more advanced calendar features based of Julian
> date, so they are still needed and the implementation must be
> independent from Time. =A0But casual usage of DateTime will be replaced
> by Time gradually.

Hi Matz.

Would it make sense to consider making DateTime a subclass of Time
rather than Date with the new implementation of Time?

The current DateTime implementation is *really* slow due to all of the
rational arithmetic involved. In my icalendar gem (RiCal) I was using
DateTime to do computations for recurring events, and by far the
biggest consumer of cpu cycles was the reduction of rationals.  I
finally implemented a FastDateTime class for internal use only in the
gem.

Looking at the new code it looks like it goes to the extent of using
separate ints for year, month, day, hour, min, sec and NOT a rational,
is that right?

--=20
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale