From: Daryoush Mehrtash Date: 2007-08-27T03:29:43+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby Vs. Java ------=_Part_70860_1979282.1188152980223 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Excellent point. In my experience the speed of program execution has nothing to do with the underlying language/hardware and everything to do with your design. My theory is that program in Assembly language is fast, not just because it is machine language, but because it is hard to generate convoluted and redundant structure. More importantly assembly language programmers are different than Visual Basic programmers. Scarcity tends to generate efficient design. Java is faster than ruby, but if you write a java program that every interaction results in 100s of SQL calls (all faithfully generated by you OR mapping) then you are not really measuring Java performance, rather your design. The real question is can Ruby developer develop better code than Java or not. You can't really answer that question until it is widely accepted. You need to see what Avg Joe Programmer produces. One issue is that the higher level programming languages attempt to separate the application programmer from the engine/frame work. Domain specific languages separate the programmers into domain language developers and the users. As time goes on, the application developers tend to lose touch of reality and the underlying trade offs. In my experience this always resulted in application programmers develop monsters. (and good source of income for people that clean up after them!) Ruby does it Meta programming differently than java, may be it produces better results at the end. Ruby look interesting but, at this point, I feel it is hard to evaluate how Ruby would play out with Avg Joe Developer. daryoush On 8/26/07, I. P. wrote: > > |Phrogz| > > P> Assembly is faster than > A monk once asked ruby-talk: "Which programming language is faster - > Ruby or Java?" Ruby-talk said: "MOV". > > > Sorry, can't resist. > > -- > I. P. 2007-08-26T20:01 > > > ------=_Part_70860_1979282.1188152980223--