From: Paris Sinclair <paris@...>
Date: 2005-01-23T19:12:04+09:00
Subject: Re: looking at ruby...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: looking at ruby..."
>    on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:43:10 +0900, Paris Sinclair <paris@perlpuma.net> writes:
>
> |Since normally these are used for data structures not just strings, I would
> |say, Storable is slow, and Marshal is twice as slow.
>
> On your machine.  I got
>
> # time perl -MStorable='freeze,thaw' -e '$start = time; for($i=0;$i<100;$i++) { for($j=0;$j<100;$j++) {  $foo[$i][$j] = ${thaw(freeze(\([rand,rand,rand])))} } }; print time - $start'
> 1
> real    0m0.943s
> user    0m0.900s
> sys     0m0.005s
>
> # time ruby -e 'foo = []; start = Time.new ; (0...100).each { |i| foo[i] = [] ; (0...100).each { |j| foo[i][j] = Marshal.load(Marshal.dump([rand,rand,rand])) } } ; puts Time.new - start'
> 0.371891
>
> real    0m0.379s
> user    0m0.334s
> sys     0m0.004s
>
> on my Linux box (Pentium M 1.6MHz).
>
> 							matz.

Ah! Yes. I ran mine on an AMD K6-2/400 running RedHat 7.2, perl 5.8.0 and 
ruby 1.8.1
When I run it through time like that, it also showed Ruby as much faster 
because of perl's compile time. I was trying to keep that out of the data, 
because when I am worried about performance it is usually web app so I would be 
running mod_perl. And for a non-web app, perlcc works really well now. But...

I notice yours the ruby is much faster than even just the perl runtime.

And on my server (P4/2G RedHat ES 3) I am getting
perl: user    0m1.160s
ruby: user    0m0.330s

Maybe I botched my ruby compile on my slow box. :)

I am glad it was my fault...

YaY! Ruby!

--
RubyPanther