Nuralanur
6/13/2005 9:54:00 PM
Tanner Burson wrote:
> I've tried to stay out of this thread, because I don't feel it's
> providing, or furthering much intelligent discussion. But what on
> earth are you attempting to say by this quote? Or are you just
> throwing out random things for the sake of saying that somewhere, for
> a given problem domain, there is a language more suited than Ruby? If
> so thanks, point taken. If not would you mind clarifying by saying
> something a bit more descriptive? Is the above quote actually in
> reference to a given language you're attempting to introduce everyone
> to? Or is it just a generic example with no meaning whatsoever?
Sorry.
Only 2 options were presented - slow-to-write fast-to-run C and
fast-to-write slow-to-run Ruby - there are other possibilities. That's
all.
Yes, of course. I was stating my personal views without claiming
generality.
Mmh, benchmarks seem to be good essentially for one thing, to judge
by this thread - propagate bad mood. I tried to change that a bit , without
success apparently.
If people should really be running away from Ruby or see
it as a language good for web-development only because of bad
benchmarks, my proposal would be to try to identify a small set
of features which are slowing down the relative performance of Ruby in
applications many people feel important and enhance them in a future version.
Maybe that's what this not-so providing thread could eventually do.
So far, I myself am quite happy with Ruby's performance, so I couldn't
open a list, but nevertheless, I think that if it is was possible to identify
some consensus about say the five biggest downslowers in important
applications
and fix them in a later version, this could achieve more than trying to
put much more work into fixing many more problems.
Best regards,
Axel