From: knohr <just_a_techie200x@...>
Date: 2007-05-08T08:30:12+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Performance - LOW ?

On May 7, 3:16 pm, khai...@enigo.com wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2007, conker wrote:
> > Hi All,
>
> > It's sad to see ruby at the bottom of this list:
>
> >http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all���=all
>
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> > Are there slimmer highly optimized versions that are specifically
> > targeted towards certain platforms?
>
> This has been beat to death in the past.  Check out the archives.
>
> In summary -- Sure, in general, Ruby is slower than some other popular
> interpreted languages.  But it's hardly debilitatingly slow.  I've got an
> asynchronous logger for ruby that will, even on modest hardware do 40-50k
> messages per second, for example.  That's pretty fast.  I've got a ruby
> web devel framework that buries (as well as I can test, since I don't
> see source for the tests anyway) the django numbers seen on this
> benchmark:
>
> http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/pages/Framework+Performance
>
> Ruby may not benchmark so fast as some other languages, but so what?  It
> doesn't stop me nor thousands of other people from using it successfully.
>
> Kirk Haines

I still think that this is due to the fact that ruby is a very young
language by comparison.  Not to mention, most of the development on
the language has been to add functionality.  Since more and more
people are hopping on the ruby bandwagon, it is only a matter of time
till the bottlenecks in the language are overcame.
Then again, if performance is the key to an application, then one
shouldn't be using a scripting/interpretive language at all.
....
All that said, I'm still a perl fanboy :)