From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2006-05-23T03:55:46+09:00
Subject: Re: Zed and Luis drop the bomb on Ruby's poor performance

On Tue, 23 May 2006, Victor Shepelev wrote:

> Caugh... I've thought, that the main reason not to have an object for each
> char is memory reason... But I can miss.

easy to avoid with flyweight pattern like fixnums in ruby.  then one is left
with performance of object lists vs. sequential memory strings.

> BTW, I was the C++ guy before Ruby, and I've never seen object creation took
> a noticeable amount of performance. As well as other "simple core"
> operations, like working with numbers and the same stuff.  Hence my
> astonishement, when after optimizing, optimizing, optimizing my program with
> large UI and DB operations I see the top time-eating methods is not UI, not
> DB, not sorting or filtering large arrays, but dumb stuff like Fixunum#+ or
> Class#new.

we are obiviously working in different programming domains - but it does sound
like you have real issues, just ones i've never experienced...

> OK, maybe later. Right now I haven't any "small function which is too slow",
> but entire program works with unacceptable speed.  On my old Celeron 900 I
> can hardly debug it (but even on more modern 1500+ and 2000+ machines, which
> are normal in Ukraine, it also works slow).

ok then - your contribution, whenever you have time, of code will certainly
help the cause to speed-up ruby or, on the contrary, to decide there is no
problem.  we really need examples to spend our energy productively i think.

cheers.

-a
-- 
be kind whenever possible... it is always possible.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama