From: Matt Armstrong <matt@...>
Date: 2002-05-05T06:28:12+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby vs. Java vs. Native trivia

ser@germane-software.com (Sean Russell) writes:

> These are from an average of five runs, using Linux's 'time'.  edt_java is 
> pure java, using the 1.4 vm; edt is the ruby version, and EDT is the 
> java-compiled-to-native version:
>
> TIMES (USER)
>   ./edt_java: 1.27
>   ./EDT: 0.14
>   edt: 0.11
> CPUS (%)
>   ./edt_java: 64.33
>   ./EDT: 56.33
>   edt: 74.67
> TOTALS (TIME)
>   ./edt_java: 2.22
>   ./EDT: 0.33
>   edt: 0.18

This pretty well proves that Ruby does the "scripting language" thing
well.  E.g. your Ruby version is only 2.4k.

It would be interesting to compare more significant applications.  I
think Java usually beats Ruby once the startup time is factored out,
so any app that runs for a long time probably runs faster in Java.


-- 
Don't send mail to Doug.Hendrix@hole.lickey.com
The address is there for spammers to harvest.