From: Your Name Here <jim@...>
Date: 2003-04-09T05:16:08+09:00
Subject: Re: [Q] Ruby for graphics


"Bill Kelly" <billk@cts.com> wrote in message
news:003401c2fde8$879d7b00$6404a8c0@musicbox...
>
> From: "Your Name Here" <jim@fivek.com>
> >
> > > To me, "good" is more "is it easy to read and write", rather than
> > > "does it run blindingly fast".  Others have different metrics
> > > depending on what they're doing.
> >
> > Well, in this case good means fast and efficient....
> >
> > If you want easy to read and write at the expense of speed, why not use
> > JAVA, what advantage does Ruby have over JAVA ?
>
> Think of Ruby as even farther up the power continuum: About maybe
> 10x "easier to read and write" than Java, but also generally slower
> at run-time.  :)
>
> In addition to all my other uses for Ruby, I do actually use Ruby to
> prototype graphics algorithms: precisely because Ruby is such a high-
> level, powerful language.  But I do expect to re-code the finished
> algorithms in C++ for speed.
>
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Bill

Yep, that answers my question...