From: Benjohn Barnes <benjohn@...>
Date: 2006-05-26T03:56:30+09:00
Subject: Re: Zed and Luis drop the bomb on Ruby's poor performance


On 22 May 2006, at 17:18, cremes.devlist@mac.com wrote:

>
> 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>."

:) Woah! Now hang on there.

I was giving a response to:
	"Are there valid excuses for not focusing on improving Ruby's poor  
computational performance?"

And to paraphrase myself, the answer is:
	Yes

However, as I said, I'll be as happy as the next about any  
performance improvements.