From: ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) Date: 2003-04-18T16:11:05+09:00 Subject: Re: Need IO Optimization help In article <3E9F501D.2010809@yahoo.com>, Julian Snitow wrote: >Michael Campbell wrote: >> --- Jim Freeze wrote: >> >>>On Friday, 18 April 2003 at 3:19:08 +0900, Michael Campbell wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>In my experience, the fastest way to access files (by far) >>> >>>is >>> >>>>>mmap. >>>> >>>> >>>>Jim, I may be mis-remembering, but wasn't your original >>>>task/goal/test to compare perl, ruby, (and others) at IO? If so, >>>>isn't using Ruby+C extensions....cheating, somehow? >>> >>>Why would this be cheating? >> >> >> As I said, I may not understand what you are trying to do. But if >> you're comparing perl to ruby, compare perl to ruby, not perl to ruby >> + C. If you "win" with ruby + C, could you not do the exact same >> enhancement with perl, and end up where you started? >> >[snipt] > >Well, for one thing, writing C extensions for ruby is remarkably easy >(not sure how perl compares in that regard). And, for me, at least, the >ability to painlessly add low-level extensions when necessary translates >directly into a real-world performance benefit. It's not so easy to do in Perl. It may be that Inline::C would make it easier, but I'm not sure that would work in this case. In the case of Ruby you can easily wite Ruby code in C. > >Of course, for benchmarking purposes, if you're writing C extensions in >ruby, it's only fair to do the same in perl... and compare the final >results in terms of runtime, and programmer time... ;-) > Maybe, but it sounds like that may be a lot of wasted time in this case. Phil