From: Dmitry Nikiforov <dniq@...>
Date: 2012-02-04T01:40:14+09:00
Subject: Re: Basic Ruby performance

Jeremy Bopp wrote in post #1043834:

Thank you for the advices!

> If you *really* need performance in the end, however, you might want to
> consider coding your critical code paths in something like C and then
> calling those from Ruby as a direct extension or using something like
> ffi to call into a DLL containing the logic.  Your overall code base may
> be a little messy, but sometimes the speed you need requires such a
> trade-off.  Hopefully, you can keep the mess limited to only a small set
> of your overall application logic.  Of course, the same holds true for
> Perl in this regard.

Well, the performance of Perl has so far been very satisfactory. In 
fact, as far as RegExps are concerned - I could barely match Perl's 
performance in C++ (and even then had to mix in some plain C code). So 
far, it seems, that I'm stuck with Perl :( Not that it's really a bad 
thing - I've been developing in it since 1997, so I know it pretty well, 
while I've only spent about 2 weeks with Ruby.

I guess I will have to wait and see if Ruby interpreter becomes more 
efficient :( But I have to confess: I'm REALLY tempted to, in some 
cases, forgo the performance in favor of handsome code :)

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.