From: "Shot (Piotr Szotkowski)" <shot@...>
Date: 2008-06-24T22:57:02+09:00
Subject: Re: RubyToC - Second Question

--1y6imfT/xHuCvpN0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Philip Rhoades:

> The reason I am interested is that I have CPU and IO intensive C/C++
> genetics simulation program that I would love to rewrite in Ruby but
> it probably would not be viable from a speed point of view.

As David Masover already pointed out, an approach you could consider is
to write everything in Ruby first, then profile using ruby-prof, see
which stuff calls which other stuff way too much and optimise this, then
speed up the outstanding slow parts by adjusting their algorithms, and
only then, if you can=E2=80=99t speed them up any more algorythmically, use
RubyInline to rewrite the bottlenecks (in place!) to C.

This is the approach I took when writing my PhD =E2=80=93 but I can=E2=80=
=99t say I got
to the =E2=80=98using RubyInline=E2=80=99 part yet, so it can=E2=80=99t be =
taken as a working
example=E2=80=A6

-- Shot
--=20
Jesus is coming. Look busy.

--1y6imfT/xHuCvpN0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIYP8si/mCfdEo8UoRAl75AJ9+bhi9r8g28RfBp/hM7smilQPC8gCgyTlQ
vGitCgsiAz/9gBXjwQvUr5A=
=Psv2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--1y6imfT/xHuCvpN0--