[#6954] Why isn't Perl highly orthogonal? — Terrence Brannon <brannon@...>

27 messages 2000/12/09

[#7022] Re: Ruby in the US — Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...>

> Is it possible for the US to develop corporate

36 messages 2000/12/11
[#7633] Re: Ruby in the US — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/19

tonys@myspleenklug.on.ca (tony summerfelt) writes:

[#7636] Re: Ruby in the US — "Joseph McDonald" <joe@...> 2000/12/19

[#7704] Re: Ruby in the US — Jilani Khaldi <jilanik@...> 2000/12/19

> > first candidates would be mysql and postgressql because source is

[#7705] Code sample for improvement — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/19

During an idle chat with someone on IRC, they presented some fairly

[#7750] Re: Code sample for improvement — "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...> 2000/12/20

Stephen White wrote:

[#7751] Re: Code sample for improvement — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/20

Hello --

[#7755] Re: Code sample for improvement — "Guy N. Hurst" <gnhurst@...> 2000/12/20

David Alan Black wrote:

[#7758] Re: Code sample for improvement — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/20

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Guy N. Hurst wrote:

[#7759] Next amusing problem: talking integers (was Re: Code sample for improvement) — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/20

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Stephen White wrote:

[#7212] New User Survey: we need your opinions — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

16 messages 2000/12/14

[#7330] A Java Developer's Wish List for Ruby — "Richard A.Schulman" <RichardASchulman@...>

I see Ruby as having a very bright future as a language to

22 messages 2000/12/15

[#7354] Ruby performance question — Eric Crampton <EricCrampton@...>

I'm parsing simple text lines which look like this:

21 messages 2000/12/15
[#7361] Re: Ruby performance question — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/15

Eric Crampton <EricCrampton@worldnet.att.net> writes:

[#7367] Re: Ruby performance question — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/16

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#7371] Re: Ruby performance question — "Joseph McDonald" <joe@...> 2000/12/16

[#7366] GUIs for Rubies — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Thought I'd switch the subject line to the subject at hand.

22 messages 2000/12/16

[#7416] Re: Ruby IDE (again) — Kevin Smith <kevins14@...>

>> >> I would contribute to this project, if it

17 messages 2000/12/16
[#7422] Re: Ruby IDE (again) — Holden Glova <dsafari@...> 2000/12/16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#7582] New to Ruby — takaoueda@...

I have just started learning Ruby with the book of Thomas and Hunt. The

24 messages 2000/12/18

[#7604] Any corrections for Programming Ruby — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

12 messages 2000/12/18

[#7737] strange border-case Numeric errors — "Brian F. Feldman" <green@...>

I haven't had a good enough chance to familiarize myself with the code in

19 messages 2000/12/20

[#7801] Is Ruby part of any standard GNU Linux distributions? — "Pete McBreen, McBreen.Consulting" <mcbreenp@...>

Anybody know what it would take to get Ruby into the standard GNU Linux

15 messages 2000/12/20

[#7938] Re: defined? problem? — Kevin Smith <sent@...>

matz@zetabits.com (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote:

26 messages 2000/12/22
[#7943] Re: defined? problem? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/22

Kevin Smith <sent@qualitycode.com> writes:

[#7950] Re: defined? problem? — Stephen White <steve@...> 2000/12/22

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#7951] Re: defined? problem? — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/22

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Stephen White wrote:

[#7954] Re: defined? problem? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/12/22

David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> writes:

[#7975] Re: defined? problem? — David Alan Black <dblack@...> 2000/12/22

Hello --

[#7971] Hash access method — Ted Meng <ted_meng@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2000/12/22

[#8030] Re: Basic hash question — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "B" == Ben Tilly <ben_tilly@hotmail.com> writes:

15 messages 2000/12/24
[#8033] Re: Basic hash question — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2000/12/24

On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, ts wrote:

[#8178] Inexplicable core dump — "Nathaniel Talbott" <ntalbott@...>

I have some code that looks like this:

12 messages 2000/12/28

[#8196] My first impression of Ruby. Lack of overloading? (long) — jmichel@... (Jean Michel)

Hello,

23 messages 2000/12/28

[#8198] Re: Ruby cron scheduler for NT available — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

John Small wrote:

14 messages 2000/12/28

[#8287] Re: speedup of anagram finder — "SHULTZ,BARRY (HP-Israel,ex1)" <barry_shultz@...>

> -----Original Message-----

12 messages 2000/12/29

[ruby-talk:6899] Re: Some performance issues

From: "Ben Tilly" <ben_tilly@...>
Date: 2000-12-07 15:26:55 UTC
List: ruby-talk #6899
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > Glancing at array.c and string.c the reason for this is
> > obvious.  Strings in Ruby take up exactly the room
> > allocated for them.  Arrays are in a buffer where they
> > have to be aligned on the left with the buffer but there
> > is room on the right.  Therefore any playing with the
> > boundaries of a string forces you to recopy the whole
> > thing.  And likewise any playing with the left side of an
> > array forces you to recopy it.  (So shift should also be
>	[...]
> > If Ruby wants good performance on this set of operations
> > (trust me, people coming from Perl are going to be very
> > likely to call shift a lot without realizing that it is
> > slow) it needs to use a buffering system closer to that
> > which Perl uses.  In ruby.h this would mean adding a
> > "capa" field to RString and an "offset" field to RArray,
> > and adding logic in the C files to use these in an
>	[...]
>
>This seems odd to me, if I understand you.  It sounds like
>adding in extra padding so you can use it if you need it.

That is exactly what it is.

>I think the system of cons cells in lisp is quite nice.
>This makes extending either end easy, and copes with nested
>objects well.

That is another very flexible system with a lot to say
for it, but with drawbacks.

>http://www.gnu.org/manual/elisp-manual-20-2.5/html_node/elisp_79.html
>
>and associated pages explain this.  I don't know if it is
>the best way to do it, but it could mean that iterating
>through strings would use the same code as arrays,
>substitution into strings would be easy. Making the list
>doubly linked would ease bidirectional iteration at the
>cost of memory.  Fast access by [] would be more difficult,
>which may be the reason for these other methods.

One of the main promises of arrays is fast access by [].

Also the regular expression library that Ruby uses
assumes that it is dealing with C style strings.  As well
any extensions built in C will assume the same thing.  So
if Ruby wants to co-exist with the outside world it is
good to have an internal implementation that isn't too
strange to people you want to cooperate with.

Oh yes, and the Lisp system takes up more memory than the
buffering system.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

In This Thread

Prev Next