From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2002-08-25T14:40:18+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and Judy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lyle Johnson" <lyle@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: Ruby and Judy


> Christopher Browne wrote:
> > I'd think it almost as sensible to consider throwing it in at a
> > "lower" level than SWIG.
> 
> Yes, this was brought up on another branch of this thread ;)
> 
> To be clear, the extent of what I'm currently working on will just 
> expose three new classes (Judy1, JudyL and JudySL) to Ruby; it's not an 
> attempt to replace Ruby's current hashing code with Judy arrays. But I 
> agree that it would be interesting to see if this offers any benefits.

This (Judy in general) is a very interesting concept to 
me, partly because I find it hard to imagine this kind 
of thing coded with the kind of efficiency we seem to 
talking about, and yet presumably in a platform-independent 
manner.

I'm not knocking it, I'm just surprised that Judy exists.

Does anyone else think this is unintuitive?

Hal