From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2003-03-01T06:23:18+09:00
Subject: Re: Is Ruby slower?

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:20:34AM +0900, Travis Whitton wrote:
> > Of course, to be fair, in its more traditional strong areas, (regexp matching, hash
> > access, etc.) Perl shows an equal or better advantage.
> 
> All it would take would be converting it over to fit the variables in st.c and
> adding another preprocessor conditional such as #elif HASH_JENKINS so as not to
> disturb the 3 other strhash implementations. Anyway, just an idea. You can read
> about Bob Jenkins hashing function at
> http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/doobs.html

just did it, and got the test of the GCLS to be only 7% faster.
Even if I disable the GC, it is only ~25% faster. Perl is about 3 times
faster than Ruby :-|

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

Q: What's the big deal about rm, I have been deleting stuff for years?  And 
   never lost anything.. oops!
A: ...
	-- From the Frequently Unasked Questions