From: cremes.devlist@...
Date: 2006-05-23T01:18:05+09:00
Subject: Re: Zed and Luis drop the bomb on Ruby's poor performance


On May 22, 2006, at 10:07 AM, benjohn@fysh.org wrote:

> *snip*
>> So what is being done to get YARV the attention it deserves? Why
>> aren't we talking about it all the time? What can I personally do to
>> help? Are there valid excuses for not focusing on improving Ruby's
>> poor computational performance?
>
> There vertainly are perfectly good "excuses" (I didn't know I needed
> one! :) ) for not focussing on Ruby's performance - it's  
> performance is
> only a concern for one (poor or otherwise) if it's actually causing  
> one
> a problem.
>
> In my previous incarnation as a signal processing and volume rendering
> coder, I imagine Ruby's performance would have been unnaceptable.  
> In my
> current role as a testing framework programmer, it's plenty fast  
> thanks,
> and jolly expressive. I've no reason (at the moment) to require more
> performance from it. When I switch back to doing graphics again,  
> I'll be
> generating my c, c++ or assembly with Ruby anyway, rather than hand
> coding it, and it'll probably be fast enough for that too.

Not to single you out (though I guess I am) but you are the first one  
in the thread to write-in with "it's good enough for me because of  
<insert reasons having nothing to do with computation speed here>."

I think we all know this. Most of us on this list are here because we  
find the language expressive, clean, fast enough for whatever, yada  
yada yada.

This thread is *specifically* about getting more computational  
performance for Ruby. Let's not throw it off track by reiterating all  
the *other* reasons the language is "good enough" for us.

> All that said - I'll crack open a drink to Ruby's performance  
> improving.

Good! Me too!

> I just want to point out why it doesn't (pragmatically) matter to me
> personally atm.

Oops! Wrong thread! :-)

cr