From: Christopher Dunn <cdunn2001@...>
Date: 2006-03-03T08:53:06+09:00
Subject: Static v. dynamic typing

------=_Part_2588_519602.1141343571583
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

> 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.


That's true. You can always fall back on an extension. The thing is, I
actually prefer Python for C++ proto-typing. It maps so well to C++, STL,
and Boost.

why do you see dynamic typing as a contributor to slowdown?

I'm no expert. There were interesting remarks on this point from the author
of Boo. This is from the Boo FAQ:
Performance: since it is statically typed, can I expect a performance equal
or close to c# or vb.net?

Yes.

At the Digital Mars D language website (D is the way C++ should be) there i=
s
a comment that a compiler writer should have had more input into the design
of C++. D is blazingly fast, but significantly easier to read and to code
than C++. It also includes integrated testing and design-by-contract.

So 'agile' does not have to mean 'slow'.


> Boo and Ocaml are examples of fast, agile languages, and if more companie=
s
> 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.

Ruby is quite a paradigm shift itself! Continuations are mind-blowing.
I love the whole concept.

What I'm saying is that the author of Boo, by realizing the difference
between dynamic-typing and type-inferencing, achieved the best of both
worlds.

------=_Part_2588_519602.1141343571583--