From: "E. Saynatkari" <none@...>
Date: 2006-02-24T08:02:22+09:00
Subject: Re: Huge performance gap

Alexis Reigel wrote:
> Stephen Waits wrote:
>> the C++ and Ruby versions - but it's not going to change the fact that
>> one is a relatively low-level language, compiled to native machine code,
>> and the other is an interpreted dynamic language.  To compare them is
>> either ridiculous, or more likely in this case, simply ignorant.
>> 
>> --Steve
>> 
> Why should that be ridiculous or ignorant?
> I stated that I was aware of the differences between interpreted and
> compiled languages. But that does not change the fact that I believe
> that this does not explain the performance gap. An execution time of
> 27.65 seconds against 0.33 seconds is not just nothing is it? It's a
> factor of over 80 times. Besides, I implemented the same code in java
> too, which isn't native code as well and runs in a virtual machine too,
> and it executed in about the same time as c++.

Well, Ruby is strictly interpreted using the parse tree instead
of VM opcodes which may or may not (depending on who you ask)
make a difference. Ruby is pretty slow but usually Fast Enough(tm).

You could try to run your script on YARV[1] to see if it helps.

[1] http://atdot.net/yarv


E

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.