From: Jim Freeze <jim@...>
Date: 2003-08-29T07:40:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Rite/Ruby2.0 & Ruby vs OCaml

On Friday, 29 August 2003 at  5:34:15 +0900, Brian Candler wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 04:48:37AM +0900, Jim Freeze wrote:
> > Hmm, I'm sitting here with a Sun box and a Linux box and
> > thought I'd try this myself. Here are the results:
> > 
> > Ruby:
> > time ruby tail
> > 499999500000
> > 1.250u 0.000s 0:01.23 101.6%    0+0k 0+0io 212pf+0w
> > 
> > Sun:
> > time ruby tail
> > 499999500000
> > 11.36u 0.05s 0:11.50 99.2%
> > 
> > BTW, both were built with the latest 1.8.0.
> 
> Should the first one read "Linux" not "Ruby" ?

Yeah, duh. #sub(/Ruby/,"Linux")

> 
> Suns have always appeared incredibly slow to me - in particular when
> compiling applications (a compiler seems to be a pretty good processor
> workout). Unless gcc has to do a *lot* more work to generate and optimise
> Sparc code than Intel code (which I doubt), then the conclusion seems to be
> that Sparcs are slow. Possibly also that Solaris is slow.
> 

Yes, Sun is very slow. Also, you showed a time of about 11.36 for Ruby.
I assume that was on a Sun box.
Is the ratio between OCaml and Ruby the same on Linux, or does
Ruby improve?

-- 
Jim Freeze
----------
"Earth is a great, big funhouse without the fun."
		-- Jeff Berner