From: ara.t.howard@... Date: 2006-03-03T02:06:33+09:00 Subject: Re: Write Fortran in Ruby On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Christopher Dunn wrote: > Try to write the following Fortran 77 program (note the > 6 space indentation) in Ruby so that it looks as close > to the Fortran as possible without extending Ruby: > > program ii > integer i > do i=0,10 > print*,i > if (i.gt.5) goto 1 > enddo > 1 print*,i*i > end > > Here's the Python candidate to date: > > for i in range(10): > #begin > print i > if i>5: break > #end > print i*i > > ----------------------- > Better Python candidate... > > from operator import gt > class goto1: pass > try: > for i in range(0,10): > print i > if gt(i,5): raise goto1 > #endfor > except goto1: pass > finally: > print i*i > #end > > But why is anyone trying to convince a fortran programmer to use a slow, > dynamic language? This reminds me: Too many of the language debates > concentrate on static vs. dynamic typing. The real issue is type > declarations. They waste time during proto-typing. But there is another way > to eliminate those pesky declarations: type-inferencing. > > People are spending a lot of time trying to "optimize" Ruby, Python, and > Perl. They're all hitting the same problem: dynamic typing. It's > insurmountable. I was really hoping that Ruby could be THE language, but > last night, browsing the Great Language Shootout page, I noticed a problem: > Ruby is SLOW! Even compared to Python. i've never had a problem with this and am routinely process files ranging from 40mb to 3gb - one only has to use c extensions. why do you see dynamic typing as a contributor to slowdown? > Boo and Ocaml are examples of fast, agile languages, and if more companies > would adopt them, I'd switch in a heartbeat. ocaml is very good - but it's a massive paradigm shift for most people's thought train... most real world problems are imperitive. -a -- judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it. - h.h. the 14th dali lama