From: Isaac Gouy Date: 2005-09-28T04:21:43+09:00 Subject: Re: Relative speed of Ruby vs Java for a large compiled app like Freenet Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 9/26/05, Isaac Gouy wrote: > > Austin Ziegler wrote: > >> On 9/26/05, Isaac Gouy wrote: > >>> Martin, perhaps you could collect this stuff and put it into your wiki > >>> page for future use? > >>> > >>> Austin Ziegler wrote: > >>>> On 9/26/05, Isaac Gouy wrote: > >>>>> Have you even looked at the website in the last 6 months? > >>>> > >>>> Yes. The text that makes a lie of everything you claim about the site > >>>> is still there on the front page, as of 26 September 2005 15.55 EDT. > >>> > >>> And that text would be? > >> > >> Assuming that you actually care, look it up on the archives. The text > >> has not improved since the last time we talked about the alioth > >> shootout. > > > > Martin DeMello suggested collecting complaints on a wiki page, so every > > 3 weeks when someone asks about Ruby performance on the shootout, they > > can simply be directed to all the complaints you've already made. > > > > If for some reason you don't feel able to mention the "text that makes > > a lie of everything you claim about the site" here - just savage it on > > the wiki page. > > > > http://rubygarden.org/ruby?BenchMarks > > No, Isaac, I'm not going to do your homework for you anymore. This mystery text didn't seem to exist in August either http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/9716aeda66f54a17?hl=en& http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/696a3b04c450815c?hl=en& > > >> Incorrect. With a *single* shell command, I can make the Ruby > >> Ackermann run perfectly (and, IIRC, better than the Python > >> equivalent, or at least to deeper recursion depths even with the > >> Python language "cheat"). This isn't undocumented; this has been > >> mentioned to you since January. It has *nothing* to do with the > >> implementation of the Ruby Ackermann, but the default stack size > >> allocated to the Ruby process. It's more restrictive under Windows, > >> and that is probably a compile-time option, but again -- it's *not* a > >> Ruby problem. It's a problem in your methodology and your > >> assumptions. If you've screwed up there, where *else* have you > >> screwed up? > > More abuse? So much for Martin Fowler's Ruby People meme. > > > > Is there seem reason the approaches suggested by Bill Kelly and Florian > > Franks are unacceptable? > > I'm a nice person, except to people who demonstrate themselves to be > willfully dishonest, obstinate, and ignorant. > > The approaches suggested by Bill and Florian aren't acceptable because > they run Ruby and then shell out to run the program again after making > the necessary environment change. It runs, but it'd be better if you > just fixed your run script. > > -austin > -- > Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com > * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca