From: Chris Ross <chris@...>
Date: 2002-05-06T19:28:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby vs. Java vs. Native trivia


On Mon, 06 May 2002 08:15:59 Lars Christensen wrote:
: On Sat, 4 May 2002, Sean Russell wrote:
: : > Hi,
: >
[snip]
: : The Ruby Benchmark isn't all fair, because i'm using a dynamically linked
: version of Ruby, which, by my benchmarks, are 30-40% slower than a
: statically linked (Can anyone explain this?). It doesn't change the
: conclusion though: Ruby is (more than relatively) slow for things like
: this.
: : This on Intel Solaris 2.8.

The reason that this occurs is due to the following:

   o dynamic: when the application is loaded into memory there is a delay
     on startup as the OS's dynamic linker loads all libraries that are
     required by it.

   o static: only the executable is loaded into memory - the dynamic
     linker doesn't have to do anything. muchos faster.

Dynamic is more flexible as upgrading the library doesn't require a
recompile of apps that use it.

Regards,

Chris

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Chris Ross   |      chris@darkrock.co.uk | ctr@ferite.org        |
|              | http://www.darkrock.co.uk | http://www.ferite.org |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Hey!  You're back!  How was the electro-shock therapy?"