From: Songsu Yun <yuns@...>
Date: 2002-03-28T10:30:24+09:00
Subject: Re: cygwin vs mswin32

It seems that now the question is why it takes more time for the Windows(I
am using Windows 98) to load and
shutdown mswin32 version of Ruby than cygwin version of Ruby.
I would think that it should take less time to load and shutdown mswin32
version of Ruby, since there is one
less DLL involved.
It's strange.
Thanks again.

"Lyle Johnson" <ljohnson@resgen.com> wrote in message
news:ua41u3lvu0nb90@corp.supernews.com...
> > The script I used just does "puts 'Hello'".
> > I thought that it might have been a known problem, but I haven't seen
> anyone
> > mentioning about it in
> > Ruby speed discussions, so it does not seem to be common problem.
> > I thought that it might be the way I built it so I downloaded mswin32
> > version from the
> > "Pragmatic Programmers"'s web site and it was the same.
> > If cygwin version is not going away, I guess I can keep using cygwin
> > version.
>
> For a Ruby program that simply does:
>
>     puts 'Hello'
>
> the total runtime is surely dwarfed by the time required for the operating
> system to load the executable code into memory, etc. and shutdown when
> finished. This has little or nothing to do with Ruby's performance. If,
for
> a *real* program (that actually does some work) you're seeing big
> performance differences between the Cygwin and MsWin32 builds of Ruby --
and
> it's not the I/O issue that's already been identified in previous
threads --
> that would be good for Matz and others to know.
>
>