From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2002-08-25T19:43:39+09:00
Subject: [OT] Re: Ruby and Judy

On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 06:36:54PM +0900, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, from my reading of the ten minute description, it's not really
> platform-independent. It's going to be much faster on machines where
> main memory access is much slower than cache memory access. That just
> happens to be most of the machines in common use today. :-) But on
> an old machine that doesn't use a cache, such as say an Apple II, it
> wouldn't be so much different in speed from other methods.

Is Ruby likely to be used in an Apple II? }:->

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
  
Sex dumps core
(Sex is a Simple editor for X11)
	-- Seen on debian bugtracking