From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2002-01-16T04:07:33+09:00
Subject: Re: memory usage question

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Hahn" <mchahn@facelink.com>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 12:25 PM
Subject: RE: memory usage question


> Doing 200 million lookups in a db would take way too long for my script.
If
> there is no other work-around than using a DB, then I'll have to go back
to
> Java, which can handle this kind of memory usage.  I'm dissapointed that
in
> one of the first quick scripts I went to Ruby for, Ruby couldn't do the
job.

I can see where you would be disappointed.

On the other hand, my "quick scripts" in the past have never involved
four million of anything in memory. Obviously your mileage varies.

I hope, by the way, that my flippant tone did not annoy you. That
wasn't the intention.

> Don't try to compete with me on oldtimer stories.  I spent two summers
> programming an IBM 650 which had NO core memory.  It was a 1-bit processor
> with only drum memory.  Even the registers were on the drum.  It used
about
> 100 vacumn tubes to implement the cpu.

I graciously concede defeat.

> > Even today when RAM approaches a gigabyte in daily life
>
> The server I'm running this on has 4 gigabytes of ram.

By daily life, I meant on the average desktop.

Still, I'm impressed with the 4 gig... I guess I am out of the loop,
because I didn't know that Windows boxes anywhere were
running with that much.

Hal