From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" Date: 2007-10-08T03:58:26+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby vs. PHP Isaac Gouy wrote: > You haven't mentioned how many remained after you discarded those with > missing values: at least 7 discards - Ruby 1.9.0 has 5, PHP another > one, JRuby another one. Did you actually include "hello world"? Allow me to show off in R (left-most column is a row number -- ignore it): > ln.ratio[,1:2] test iter 1 binarytrees 12 2 binarytrees 14 3 binarytrees 16 10 fasta 250000 11 fasta 2500000 13 hello 1 14 hello 200 15 knucleotide 10000 16 knucleotide 100000 17 knucleotide 1000000 18 mandelbrot 120 19 mandelbrot 600 20 mandelbrot 3000 25 nbody 200000 26 nbody 2000000 27 nbody 20000000 28 nsieve 7 29 nsieve 8 30 nsieve 9 34 partialsums 25000 35 partialsums 250000 36 partialsums 2500000 37 pidigits 500 38 pidigits 1500 39 pidigits 2500 40 recursive 3 41 recursive 7 43 regexdna 100000 44 regexdna 300000 45 regexdna 500000 49 spectralnorm 500 50 spectralnorm 3000 51 spectralnorm 5500 52 sumcol 1000 53 sumcol 11000 54 sumcol 21000 If there are things I should throw out, let me know and I'll re-run the plots. > geometric mean (of ratios to most performant program): > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4sandbox/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all Yeah, I saw that. I wanted to use gcc as the baseline for everything. > As in - "we have found that the CPU time is rarely the limiting factor; > the expressibility of the language means that most programs are small > and spend most of their time in I/O and native run-time code." > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/miscfile.php?file=benchmarking&title=Flawed%20Benchmarks For nice tight "inner interpreters" aka "virtual machines", true, including YARV. I'm seeing otherwise for MRI. This is not news to the Ruby community, btw.