From: Mike Stok <mike@...>
Date: 2002-09-17T21:13:26+09:00
Subject: Re: Java vs. Perl vs. ...

In article <CIELJOOMCFBDNHLICOEFMEDKCIAA.james@jamesbritt.com>,  JamesBritt wrote:
> The "Use Perl" website (use.perl.org) has a small entry commenting on a Java
> vs. Perl test for performing string processing.  The Perl site [1] says the
> Java site [2] shows the Java source code for the match-up, but not the Perl
> source.  After some requests, the Java author released the Perl code to the
> Perl folks (though it does not seem to have made it to the original Java
> site).  It's on the Perl site [1].
> 
> Not surprisingly, the Java site [2] claims the Java code is better, as it
> ran the test case faster.
> Also not surprisingly, the Perl folks believe the Perl code is really not
> quality code and can be optimized to do better than Java.

There are plenty of comments about the merits of the particular
benchmark, but I was interested to see how Ruby stacks up on my machine.
SO using Ruby 1.7.3 and Sun's Linux 1.4.0 JDK I tried the code on the 
Java site (plus the missing ") against

#!/usr/bin/env ruby

begin

    unless ARGV.length == 2
        puts "Usage: #{$0} inputFile outputFile"
        exit 0
    end

    start_time = Time.now

    File.open(ARGV[1], 'w') { |out|
        File.open(ARGV[0]).each_line { |line|
            unless ( line =~ /\.(?:css|jpg|gif|CSS|JPG|GIF) HTTP/ or
                     line =~ /^192\.(9|18|29)\./)
                out.print(line)
            end
        }
    }

    end_time = Time.now

    puts "Processing time: #{end_time - start_time} Seconds"

rescue => message
    puts "Error: #{message}"

end

[mike@ratdog tmp]$ time ruby CleanLogs.rb et-access.log xxx
Processing time: 6.579613 Seconds
2.88user 0.16system 0:06.82elapsed 44%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (256major+431minor)pagefaults 0swaps
[mike@ratdog tmp]$ time java CleanLogs et-access.log yyy
Processing Time: 7 Seconds
4.07user 0.39system 0:10.45elapsed 42%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (1631major+1110minor)pagefaults 0swaps

The outputs were identical, but as it was a quick between breakfast and 
walking the dog hack I may have missed something.

:-)

Mike

-- 
mike@stok.co.uk                    |           The "`Stok' disclaimers" apply.
http://www.stok.co.uk/~mike/       | GPG PGP Key      1024D/059913DA 
mike@exegenix.com                  | Fingerprint      0570 71CD 6790 7C28 3D60
http://www.exegenix.com/           |                  75D2 9EC4 C1C0 0599 13DA