[#35036] Intentional Programming — "John" <nojgoalbyspam@...>

Hi all

17 messages 2002/03/01

[#35112] RDoc question — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I have a question about RDoc. I would like to reference an external

17 messages 2002/03/02

[#35162] string to array and back — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

I am needing to convert strings to arrays of bytes and back. I see pack and

19 messages 2002/03/03

[#35364] file reading impossibly slow? — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

So I'm doing this benchmark to work with my set program. Part of the problem is

18 messages 2002/03/07

[#35429] Interesting link on static/dynamic typing... — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

...relevant to Ruby compared to other languages discussion:

25 messages 2002/03/08
[#35441] Re: Interesting link on static/dynamic typing... — Paul Brannan <paul@...> 2002/03/08

On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 05:34:43PM +0900, Robert Feldt wrote:

[#35460] Spam, ruby-talk, and me — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

14 messages 2002/03/08

[#35537] Confusion — David Corbin <dcorbin@...>

The following is from my debugging through xmlc.rb

16 messages 2002/03/10

[#35579] RE: WIN32OLE and LDAP — "Morris, Chris" <chris.morris@...>

> The new version 0.4.2 of Win32OLE has WIN32OLE.bind method.

16 messages 2002/03/11

[#35652] Method type 'abstract' — Peter Hickman <peter@...>

The one thing I miss in Ruby is the abstract class method to go along

15 messages 2002/03/12

[#35653] Some potential RCRs — "Bob Alexander" <bobalex@...>

Here are a few thing I am considering submitting as RCRs. I'm looking =

50 messages 2002/03/12
[#35672] Re: Some potential RCRs — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2002/03/12

Hi,

[#35683] Re: Some potential RCRs — Massimiliano Mirra <list@...> 2002/03/12

On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 03:58:01AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#35697] Re: Some potential RCRs — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2002/03/13

Hello --

[#35694] rpkg 0.3 — Massimiliano Mirra <list@...>

14 messages 2002/03/13
[#35699] RE: [ANN] rpkg 0.3 — <james@...> 2002/03/13

>

[#35787] testunit - setup -> set_up ? — "Morris, Chris" <chris.morris@...>

I'm just starting to use testunit instead of rubyunit ... I noticed with an

21 messages 2002/03/13
[#35793] RE: testunit - setup -> set_up ? — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2002/03/13

Morris, Chris [mailto:chris.morris@snelling.com] wrote:

[#35796] Re: testunit - setup -> set_up ? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2002/03/13

"Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:

[#35797] RE: testunit - setup -> set_up ? — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2002/03/13

dave@thomases.com [mailto:dave@thomases.com] wrote:

[#35898] camelCase and underscore_style — "Morris, Chris" <chris.morris@...>

First, a question. If underscore_style is the Ruby norm for methods and the

20 messages 2002/03/15
[#35924] Re: camelCase and underscore_style — "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...> 2002/03/15

Phil Tomson wrote:

[#35930] RE: camelCase and underscore_style — "Nathaniel Talbott" <nathaniel@...> 2002/03/16

Guy N. Hurst [mailto:gnhurst@hurstlinks.com] wrote:

[#35989] ANN: Locana GUI and GUI Builder version 0.81 — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I am pleased to announce release 0.81 of Locana. Locana is a GUI

16 messages 2002/03/16

[#35992] XPath — Michael Schuerig <schuerig@...>

27 messages 2002/03/16

[#36034] Mini Rant: Indenting — Thomas Hurst <tom.hurst@...>

Why is it that I see *so* much code like:

14 messages 2002/03/17

[#36049] web templating for static sites? — Massimiliano Mirra <list@...>

I'm using the Template Toolkit for generating static web sites and I

42 messages 2002/03/17
[#36426] web standars (was: web templating for static sites?) — Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@...> 2002/03/20

Albert Wagner wrote:

[#36052] Xml Serialization for Ruby — "Chris Morris" <chrismo@...>

=Xml Serialization for Ruby

20 messages 2002/03/17
[#36059] Re: [ANN] Xml Serialization for Ruby — Massimiliano Mirra <list@...> 2002/03/17

On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:20:56AM +0900, Chris Morris wrote:

[#36067] eval/Module question — David Corbin <dcorbin@...>

If I have a String src that is similar to the following:

13 messages 2002/03/18

[#36157] Development of Windows version of Ruby — ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)

Now that we've dumped the cygwin requirement for the Windows version of

63 messages 2002/03/18
[#36330] Re: Development of Windows version of Ruby — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> 2002/03/19

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:05:27 GMT, "Albert L. Wagner" <alwagner@uark.edu> wrote:

[#36431] Re: Development of Windows version of Ruby — Dennis Newbold <dennisn@...> 2002/03/20

[#36458] Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — ptkwt@... (Phil Tomson) 2002/03/21

Dennis Newbold <dennisn@pe.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.3.96.1020320113603.22242B-100000@shell2>...

[#36482] RE: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — "Christian Boos" <cboos@...> 2002/03/21

Some thoughts on the 2 first Windows issues, plus a 4th one...

[#36496] Re: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2002/03/21

"Christian Boos" <cboos@bct-technology.com> writes:

[#36510] Re: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — nobu.nokada@... 2002/03/21

Hi,

[#36514] Re: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2002/03/21

nobu.nokada@softhome.net writes:

[#36518] Re: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — nobu.nokada@... 2002/03/21

Hi,

[#36211] dots in Dir.entries — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)

Hi,

22 messages 2002/03/19

[#36231] style choice — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

A style question for the community ... which of the following do you prefer, and

18 messages 2002/03/19

[#36345] ANN: REXML 2.0 — Sean Russell <ser@...>

I have a feeling there will only be three major revisions of REXML. Version

19 messages 2002/03/20

[#36610] Re: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:11:55 GMT, Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> wrote:

16 messages 2002/03/22

[#36645] Ruby for Mac OS 10.1 — Jim Freeze <jim@...>

Hi:

28 messages 2002/03/23

[#36768] Re: Difference between 'do' and 'begin' — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>

In <slrna9ulvi.f2h.mwg@fluffy.isd.dp.ua> Wladimir Mutel <mwg@fluffy.isd.dp.ua> writes:

23 messages 2002/03/26
[#36783] RE: Difference between 'do' and 'begin' — <james@...> 2002/03/26

[#36792] Re: Difference between 'do' and 'begin' — Kent Dahl <kentda@...> 2002/03/26

james@rubyxml.com wrote:

[#36808] Error calling Tk in a loop — <james@...>

I'm trying to write some code that pops up a Tk window when for certain

15 messages 2002/03/26

[#36841] RE: Windows version of Ruby (proposals) — "Andres Hidalgo" <sol123@...>

I believe that Ruby has a place in windows (Office), I happened to have

14 messages 2002/03/27

[#36863] Hash.new(Hash.new) doesn't use Hash.new as default value — "Jonas Delfs" <jonas@...>

Hi -

18 messages 2002/03/27

[#37080] Why isn't Math object-oriented? — Bil Kleb <W.L.Kleb@...>

So I'm reading along in the Pixaxe book (yet again), and I am told

15 messages 2002/03/30

[#37121] String#begins?(s) — timsuth@... (Tim Sutherland)

class String

24 messages 2002/03/31

Re: file reading impossibly slow? 1.6.6 vs. 1.6.2 numbers

From: Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
Date: 2002-03-08 00:04:18 UTC
List: ruby-talk #35396
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Pete McBreen wrote:
>
> I missed the first two, but having recently installed the 1.6.6 version I
> was amazed at the difference. I don't think it is something that 1.7 ot
> 1.8 will solve, unless they are using completely different file system
> calls. I think it is likely to have something to do with the way 1.6.6 is
> built in Visual C++ and/or the fact that we have to use different file
> system calls to get good performance under mswin (if this is the case then
> cygwin version must be doing somethin under the covers to invoke different
> file system calls).
>

I think I described one of the major reasons why the native Windows
version of Ruby 1.6.5 was slow in my mail from 6 Dec [ruby-talk:27728]
(I include a copy of that mail below).

It was just very bad coding, making unnecessary system-calls for
*each* character of a file. No wonder it was slow.

(I believe the reason was the thread-support, that was very naively
implemented. Other people can describe this better ....)

As already mentioned, 1.7 did fix this.

I *relly* hope that a non-development-Ruby-version will be made soon
that fixes this problem.

/Johan Holmberg

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: File IO very slow on Windows ("i586-mswin32")
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 18:50:24 GMT

Ruby built natively for Win32 is very slow when reading large files.
I use 1.6.5 built on "i586-mswin32". Recently I had a little program
essentially containing just a loop like

    while line = gets
        ...
    end

When I ran this script on a file looking like:

    $ wc foo.log
    19130  692976 16813844    foo.log

it took about 90 seconds. This seemed very strange. So I recoded the
script in Perl. Result: 2 seconds. Quite a difference ...

I also tried the two scripts on Solaris, to see if the problem was
Win32-specific. Result:

            Perl:  2 seconds
            Ruby: 12 seconds

Not so good for Ruby, but not as bad as on NT.
Finally I tried to look in the Ruby code, to see where the time is spent.
After a while I found a section in the function 'rb_io_gets'. I tried to
comment out a couple of lines:

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    *** io.c~ Wed Sep  5 07:53:28 2001
    --- io.c Thu Dec  6 18:24:18 2001
    ***************
    *** 746,755 ****
    --- 746,759 ----
	again:
	  bp = buf;
	  for (;;) {
	    READ_CHECK(f);
    + #ifdef KOKO
	    TRAP_BEG;
    + #endif
	    c = getc(f);
    + #ifdef KOKO
	    TRAP_END;
    + #endif
	    if (c == EOF) {
		if (ferror(f)) {
		    if (errno == EINTR) continue;
    ------------------------------------------------------------

After this change, the script took 4 seconds (instead of 90 as before).
TRAP_BEG implies that for example the Win32-function
'InterlockedExchange' is called *once for each character* as far as
I can see. This seems totally  insane ...

Is this an already known fact ?
Is anything being done to fix it ?

Recently there has been talk of using Visual C++ (or another "native"
compiler) for the Win32 version of Ruby. I suppose things like this
has to be dealt with before  Ruby can be used seriously on Win32
(and I very much want that to happen).

Regards,

Johan Holmberg

---------------------------------------------------------------



In This Thread