From: Carlos Agarie Date: 2012-09-19T18:09:52+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby - is it worth the effort? --f46d04389115579c5104ca0a5c53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Was that 1.8.* or did you try that with 1.9.* MRI? What kind of > processing did you do and how big were the differences? I'd like to know, too. I stumbled upon a similar problem, but it was long ago. 2012/9/19 Robert Klemme > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Peter Hickman > wrote: > > On 19 September 2012 09:24, Robert Klemme > wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Peter Zotov > wrote: > >>> That being said, I won't write number crunching algorithms in Ruby, o= r > work > >>> with gigabyte-sized datasets. > >> > >> Well, even that depends. Sifting through logfiles of that volume is > >> almost certainly IO bound and the processing speed can be negligible. > >> That of course depends on the processing. > > > > Being a Ruby shop we try to use Ruby everywhere but when it does come > > to grinding through logfiles (some several gigs in size) we had to go > > with Perl. The string processing and regex matching was so much > > faster. We couldn't get Ruby even close :( Speed was essential, we > > couldn't just sit around and wait for the process to complete. > > Was that 1.8.* or did you try that with 1.9.* MRI? What kind of > processing did you do and how big were the differences? > > > Right tools for the job I guess. Ruby is fine for everything else so > > switching it all over to Perl would not really gain us anything. > > Besides if you are a programmer knowing more than one language is a > > must. > > +1 > > Cheers > > robert > > -- > remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end > http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/ > > --=20 Carlos Agarie Control engineering student Polytechnic School University of S=E3o Paulo --f46d04389115579c5104ca0a5c53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Was that 1.8.* or did you try that with 1.9.* MRI? =A0What kind o= f
> processing did you do and how big were the differences?

I'd like to know, too. I stumbled upon a similar problem, bu= t it was long ago.

2012/9/19 Robert Klemme &l= t;shortcutt= er@googlemail.com>

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Peter Hickman
<peterhickman386@googl= email.com> wrote:
> On 19 September 2012 09:24, Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Peter Zotov <whitequark@whitequark.org> wrote:
>>> That being said, I won't write number crunching algorithms= in Ruby, or work
>>> with gigabyte-sized datasets.
>>
>> Well, even that depends. =A0Sifting through logfiles of that volum= e is
>> almost certainly IO bound and the processing speed can be negligib= le.
>> That of course depends on the processing.
>
> Being a Ruby shop we try to use Ruby everywhere but when it does come<= br> > to grinding through logfiles (some several gigs in size) we had to go<= br> > with Perl. The string processing and regex matching was so much
> faster. We couldn't get Ruby even close :( Speed was essential, we=
> couldn't just sit around and wait for the process to complete.

Was that 1.8.* or did you try that with 1.9.* MRI? =A0What kind of processing did you do and how big were the differences?

> Right tools for the job I guess. Ruby is fine for everything else so > switching it all over to Perl would not really gain us anything.
> Besides if you are a programmer knowing more than one language is a > must.

+1

Cheers

robert

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blo= g.rubybestpractices.com/

--
= Carlos Agarie
Control engineering student

Polytechnic School
Univ= ersity of S=E3o Paulo

--f46d04389115579c5104ca0a5c53--