From: "s.ross" Date: 2008-03-30T02:03:40+09:00 Subject: Re: Why Ruby do not optimize code at all? On Mar 29, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Robert Klemme wrote: > On 28.03.2008 18:21, s.ross wrote: > >> Before this question is relegated to the heap of "premature >> optimization" ideas, I think the value of some level of programmer- >> controller optimizations would be useful in the future. > > I guess you mean "programmer controlled", did you? In fact, there > is plenty of room for that today already. There are numerous > techniques that can be applied to code to make it faster. Often, > proper design and / or algorithms make a huge difference. :-) > > Kind regards > > robert Yes, "controlled". And yes, a good algo beats a machine optimization almost every time. But still, some of the stupid optimization tricks people have traditionally used for the last several percent destroy the readability of code. I've never been terribly unhappy with the performance of Ruby, but if I were ... say ... Industrial Light and Magic and choosing between Ruby and Python to glue my effects stuff together, I might be swayed toward Python because it preserves bytecode (right?). It might be nice, once we figure out how to express Ruby in an optimizable bytecode to create JIT optimizers that are platform specific. Who knows what results that might yield. My original point, spelling not withstanding, is that this is a topic (along with threading) that typically gets relegated to the premature optimizations bin, and doesn't rise to the level of "this should be possible one day and it should work with only the predictable glitches." If I were heavily invested in my Java or C programming skills, and wanted to keep Ruby out of my shop -- and there are people who do fight to keep new technologies away -- lack of optimization might be an attack plan. Again, just my opinion.