From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2001-01-17T00:41:55+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:9386] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages

Amos <amos+lists.ruby-talk@utdallas.edu> writes:

> >>>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:42:54 +0900,
> >>>>> Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> (dt) writes:
> 
> dt>   7. Identify most serious bottleneck. If due to speed of Ruby, try to 
> dt>      improve. If not possible, reimplement that section of the code in 
> dt>      something like C or C++. Otherwise do normal optimizations.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, about how often do you find it necessary to
> do this?

So far, we've had to tune, but only once had to recode (that was when
we needed a Bloom filter, and the bit operations were taking too
long). The reality is that most applications spend most of their time
waiting for other things to happen, so the relative performance of
Ruby doesn't affect us too much. If we were writing a compiler, then
it would be different, but for your average "twiddle some bits, go to
the database" type application, we haven't seen a problem.

However... the reality is that we're also having to recode Ruby
programs for other reasons. Deployment is one issue, client
nervousness is another. But even with all that, we've still benefitted
from using Ruby commercially in our last three development projects.

> BTW, as I'm sure has been stated tons of times before, y'all have a
> wonderful book.  I've really been enjoying _Programming Ruby_.

Thank you! It was a fun book to write.


Regards


Dave