From: Ryan Leavengood <mrcode@...>
Date: 2005-06-22T07:25:50+09:00
Subject: Re: 1. Ruby result:  101 seconds , 2. Java result:9.8 seconds,          3. Perl result:62 seconds

Glenn Parker said:
>
> Big frickin' deal!  Come on, guys, you are all smarter than that.
>
> Recode the Java version using the same algorithm and *then* compare.
> It's not like Java won't benefit just as much from the algorithmic
> improvements.

Yes, that is why I said the naive version. I'm sure the optimized Java
version would be faster than the Ruby one.

But I really think we are getting off track here. For one thing, Java was
really slow in the old days and people made the same comparisons between
it and C that we are making between it and Ruby. But people still used
Java because it was easier to use and more powerful than C. Plus after
years and years of R&D and tons of money, Sun (and other companies) made
some pretty fast implementations (plus computers are really, really fast
these days.)

If some company threw a couple million dollars at the problem I'm sure
Ruby could be made quite a bit faster. But as has been said many times
before, for most problems Ruby is more than fast enough. Plus we do have
some good work being done with YARV, which is essentially a one man
project!

If you prefer Java to Ruby for its performance and whatever other factors,
that is cool. But I fail to see the point in constantly making performance
comparisons, especially from people who seem to want to program in Ruby.

If the performance of Ruby is that much of an issue, I'd suggest putting
your money where your mouth is and helping with YARV or trying to make
your own Ruby VM. It isn't exactly child's play.

Ryan