From: Eleanor McHugh Date: 2008-05-02T03:32:47+09:00 Subject: Re: How about the execution efficiency in Ruby 1.9? On 1 May 2008, at 17:56, Isaac Gouy wrote: > On May 1, 3:58 am, Eleanor McHugh > wrote: >> On 1 May 2008, at 07:45, ThoML wrote: >> >>> On May 1, 5:10 am, Erwin Moller wrote: >>>> Has It been greatly improved? >> >>> Theshootoutgives a hint: >> >>> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4sandbox/benchmark.php?test=all&l >>> ... >> >>> How these charts relate to real-world problems ... oh well, but it's >>> fun to play with. >> >> It's interesting to see that Ruby 1.9 is now faster than Icon, which >> is my other fave language (and who's VM I'm far too familiar with). > > > Much the same rather than faster (and there are many missing Icon > programs) > > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4sandbox/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=icon&lang2=yarv Well there's lots of room for improvement in the Icon VM, what with the current design being fifteen years old and written in its own god- awful macro language that adds additional overhead. On the other hand, I did significant physical simulations using it on an i386 for my degree dissertation and never found it particularly slow so if Ruby 1.9 is in the same ballpark now that's a good improvement. As for the lack of Icon benchmarks, well judging from the activity on the Unicon mailing list I'd be surprised if there's more than a few hundred of us worldwide who ever use it. Makes Ruby look positively mainstream ;) Ellie Eleanor McHugh Games With Brains http://slides.games-with-brains.net ---- raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason