From: David Ross Date: 2004-06-18T14:17:18+09:00 Subject: Re: the new great computer language shootout On Friday 18 June 2004 01:03 am, GGarramuno wrote: > Eric Hodel wrote in message > news:<20040617223524.GE96045@segment7.net>... > > > Lennon Day-Reynolds (rcoder@gmail.com) wrote: > > > I would guess that some of the Ruby code needs to be optimized, as > > > well; for example, in the Array Access test, Ruby places dead last. > > > That's rediculous, and I don't think it's indicative of the array > > > performance for general cases. > > > > This is because of the use of Numeric#step. The implementation is > > flawed. > > Huh? In what way is it flawed? While there you can use slicing for In what way is it flawed? The whole thing is flawed. It is not fair to judge the languages like this. Especially when they are compiled with GNU gcc, the optimizations are really poor. It would be fair if someone used an optimized compiler to compile ruby and the others then compete. As you can see Java apears as first on some of the lists. I will state the fact that Java is not compiled by GCC. They are probably using a optimized comiler. which makes everything faster. I would like to see someone compiler ruby by Intel's Compiler ICC. I'm sure Ruby would then be better than java in tests. Java has optimized code and assembly. theres no possible way much of anything can be better when they are the ones using optimized comiler and tossing out the binaries. ---David Ross > some operations, other array operations need iteration thru the array > as showed. > I do find the shootout is pretty accurate in terms of real ruby > performance overall. > The new web page is pretty bad in that most links are broken due to > typos and what not, so it is not clear to me the python tests are > based on psyco. There does appear to be a separate psyco benchmark.