From: Timothy Gregory Date: 2013-02-25T09:01:12+09:00 Subject: Re: [RubyInstaller] Re: [ANN] RubyInstaller 2.0.0-p0 released --047d7b6774d0054d8d04d6813dd1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable it will be great if 2.0 is quicker i read this link at rubydev http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-dev/46547 that has the Ubuntu language shootout test page http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/performance.php?test=3Dbinarytr= ees a binary trees test Ruby 1.9.3 compared with C and others our 1.9.3 is slow using twice the memory albeit half as much code in C it takes 12 seconds and in Ruby 214 seconds on the other hand Ruby is quick the test in LUA takes 7 minutes _ yawn Tim0 On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Timothy Gregory wrote= : > thanks i read the intro link > Matz 's module refinements looks great > nested Ruby methods with refinements on the outer method > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Luis Lavena wrote= : > >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Tim0 wrote: >> > >> >> >{.... >> >> >> >> * Existing pre-compiled gems are not Ruby 2.0 compatible >> >> >> >> Ruby 2.0 introduces ABI breakage which means compiled C extensions wi= th >> >> previous 1.9.3 will work with Ruby 2.0. >> >> >> >> DO NOT install Ruby 2.0 on top of existing Ruby 1.9.3, or try to use >> >> compiled >> >> extensions with it. ..} >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi Luis >> > Congratulations for the long-awaited Ruby 2.0 p0 exe >> > may i just ask >> > when i read '..gems will not work' and next sentence >> > compiled C extensions '1.9.3 will work' >> > >> > is the word 'not' missing in the latter sentence? >> > >> >> Yes, that is a typo, but I think last sentence make it clear: >> >> DO NOT install Ruby 2.0.0 on top of existing Ruby 1.9.3 or try to use >> compiled extensions with it. >> >> -- >> Luis Lavena >> AREA 17 >> - >> Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, >> but rather when there is nothing more to take away. >> Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry >> >> > --047d7b6774d0054d8d04d6813dd1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

it will be great if 2.0 is quicker i read t= his link at rubydev
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby= /ruby-dev/46547
that has the Ubuntu language shootout test page

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/performance.php?test=3Dbin= arytrees
a binary trees test Ruby 1.9.3 compared with C and others
our 1.9.3 is slow using twice the memory albeit half as much code
in C it takes 12 seconds and in Ruby 214 seconds
on the other hand Ruby is quick the test in LUA takes 7 minutes _ yawn
<= br>

Tim0

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Timothy Gregory <tigre7t@gmai= l.com> wrote:

thanks i read the intr= o link
Matz 's module refinements looks great
nested Ruby = methods with refinements on the outer method

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com= > wrote:

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Tim0 <tigre7t@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >{....
>>
>> * Existing pre-compiled gems are not Ruby 2.0 compatible
>>
>> Ruby 2.0 introduces ABI breakage which means compiled C extensions= with
>> previous 1.9.3 will work with Ruby 2.0.
>>
>> DO NOT install Ruby 2.0 on top of existing Ruby 1.9.3, or try to u= se
>> compiled
>> extensions with it. ..}
>
>
>
> Hi Luis
> Congratulations for the long-awaited Ruby 2.0 p0 exe
> may i just ask
> when i read =A0'..gems will not work' and next sentence
> compiled C extensions '1.9.3 will work'
>
> is the word 'not' missing in the latter sentence?
>

Yes, that is a typo, but I think last sentence make it clear:
DO NOT install Ruby 2.0.0 on top of existing Ruby 1.9.3 or try to use
compiled extensions with it.

--
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry

--047d7b6774d0054d8d04d6813dd1--