From: Benoit Cerrina <benoit.cerrina@...>
Date: 2002-05-06T15:34:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby vs. Java vs. Native trivia

You probably need to try with a bigger app.  I'd guess that the compile to
native version of java is still loading a bunch of support libs and a big
part of your timing would be the loading of those libs.

Also for the JVM version, the probleme would be even worse if the jit had
kicked in since it add another huge penalty.  Basically anything which has
to do with java is really bad at small program.  maybe you'd want to try a
c++ or c version for the native comparison.
Benoit
"Sean Russell" <ser@germane-software.com> wrote in message
news:3cd45ecd@news.mhogaming.com...
> Matt Armstrong wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> What surprised me was that the Ruby script was nearly as fast as the
> compiled-to-native version of the Java implementation.  IE, Ruby,
> interpreted, and also requiring the loading of a virtual machine, was
> nearly as fast as a non-interpreted Java app.
>
> --- SER