From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" Date: 2008-05-02T11:44:45+09:00 Subject: Re: How about the execution efficiency in Ruby 1.9? Eleanor McHugh wrote: > 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 ;) The main use of it that I'm aware of is in the build process for Norman Ramsey's "noweb" literate programming tool. Ralph Griswold, the creator of Icon (and SNOBOL!) passed away last year, and I don't know if anyone has stepped into a maintainer role.