From: gwtmp01@...
Date: 2005-06-22T14:55:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Runtime vs Development


On Jun 22, 2005, at 12:33 AM, Lothar Scholz wrote:
> gmc> So Ruby is 10 times slower than some-other-language but
> gmc> you've got $70,000 more in your pocket when your done.
>
> gmc> Moral:  Hardware is cheap, people aren't.
>
> You forgot the cost of maintaining 50 dedicated systems also energy
> resources and other things. Also it is not sure that it scales well
> - easy for web applications but maybe difficult to impossible for  
> other
> application domains.
>
> Moral: We need a faster language implementation.

A: I don't think Ruby is 10x slower for most applications (i.e more  
savings)
B: For applications that really need speed, code the critical
    parts in C and use Ruby to control it all (i.e. more savings)
C: $2000/headless system is pretty generous.
D: My Ruby employees are happier than the other-language employees.
E: I probably have the application finished sooner which opens
    up more opportunities (time is money).
F: Once you've figured out how to maintain 5 systems efficiently, you've
    solved the hard part.  The remaining 5, 10, or even 45 systems are
    much cheaper to maintain per/unit.
G: I've still got $70,000 to spend on other things, even if you don't
    like A, B, C, D, E, and F.

I tried to fudge the numbers in my example away from Ruby or for that
matter any language X being compared to language Y based on some  
perceived
run-time performance factor.

What I was trying to point out with my simplistic example is that
using a raw runtime performance metric to argue in favor of this  
language
or that language is naive when building a system in which language
performance is just one part of the cost consideration. Performance  
issues
can be addressed with hardware. Development time can only be addressed
with better people or better tools.

Of course any project needs to consider all these things including  
the things
that you mentioned. But assuming a priori that the ability to compute  
prime
numbers is the *critical* factor it just a waste of time.

And of course, I think better Ruby implementations would be a good  
thing.



Gary Wright