From: Paul Lutus <nospam@...>
Date: 2006-10-22T01:40:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and Perl

Adrian Howard wrote:

/ ...

> Because some of us have used Eiffel, Smalltalk and Lisp
> implementations that are pretty darn speedy :-)

Yes, but this doesn't compare their speed to hypothetical non-OO embodiments
of the same languages (I know this is absurd, just making the point).

> Hell OO Perl is 
> speedier than Ruby last time I benchmarked.

Yes, unfortunately this compares apples and oranges. It doesn't compare Perl
with OO Perl, or compare Ruby with a hypothetical non-OO embodiment of
Ruby.

> 
> Not that I dislike Ruby. It's fast enough for me, and the decrease in
> developer time more than make up for any decrease in execution speed.
> That doesn't mean that Ruby's speed (or lack thereof) is down to it's
> OO orientation - or that it can't improve (YARV for example).

It may well improve over time, but my original point is that producing an OO
language typically involves some speed sacrifices in exchange for the
advantages of object orientation.

-- 
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com