[#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:8162] Re: speedup of anagram finder

From: gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro)
Date: 2000-12-28 07:30:37 UTC
List: ruby-talk #8162
Helo ---

In message "[ruby-talk:8152] Re: speedup of anagram finder"
    on 00/12/28, David Alan Black <dblack@candle.superlink.net> writes:
>>    1. Initialize block variables before the block.
>>    2. Use destructive method!
>>    3. `x.size > 0' ==> `not x.empty?'
>>    4. `x.size > n' ==> `x[n]'
>>    5. `a = x[0]'   ==> `a, = x'
>
>I assume that #2 is because many non-destructive methods call their
>destructive equivalents, so for instance Array#flatten makes a copy of
>the object and then calls Array#flatten! on it.  Or is there another
>reason?  And is this something that can be depended on permanently?

Not permanently but true in the almost all cases.  Additionally,
nobang always creates a new object and they yield GC, which takes
unexpectedly much time cost often.

However, I like also method-chain because it doesn't fragment my
thought streams but needs nobang :-(

>About #4: it breaks on this:
>
>   a = [1,2,false]
>   a.size > 2       => true
>   a[2]             => false

Oh, yes. I didn't assume boolean arrays. #4 is not general one.

>I keep finding that "for x in y" benchmarks faster than #each.
>I wish it didn't, because I like #each.  Further research
>required....

Interesting!
                      user     system      total        real
   each          10.945312   0.000000  10.945312 ( 11.007231)
   for            8.242188   0.007812   8.250000 (  8.274486)

Why I got such result?

>Would there be any disadvantage here to using "[]" instead of
>Array.new?  It seems to be a lot faster.

Hmm, Array.new refer the constant `Array' and it maybe takes much
time.  On the other hand, `[]' is compiled on the parse stage.

With

  def arraynew; Array.new end
  def arrayliteral; [] end

I got by 1000_000 times iterations:

                      user     system      total        real
   arraynew       9.289062   0.000000   9.289062 (  9.345590)
   arrayliteral   5.078125   0.000000   5.078125 (  5.079134)

>Speaking of which....  I found that storing the hash keys as
>strings, in the following manner:
>
>      (anagrams[key.join] ||= []) .push word
>
>sped things up quite a bit.  I'm not sure why that would be, exactly,
>but it did seem to be the case.  (Combining it into one line is just
>to avoid doing two joins or creating a new variable.)  Yet more
>further research....

I'm guessing the times to search symbol are unexpectedly taken. 

>			 user     system      total        real
>   david             4.600000   0.000000   4.600000 (  4.591789)
>   gotoken           6.290000   0.030000   6.320000 (  6.329997)
>
>
>Much of the speed david() picked up seems to be from "key.join".

I didn't hit on that! 

# Ah, time trial is enjoyable :-)

-- Gotoken

In This Thread