gabriele renzi <surrender_it / remove.yahoo.it> wrote in message news:<6293b0lbejdddpv4rqnvh3sljfsuppc8ha / 4ax.com>...

> You can remove the @vars, at the top, leave thos in the method calls.
> then remove the useless (). And the useless 'then's and 'return's

Thanks - the returns aren't useless ;-)
 
> Next, I believe you could use attr_accessor for *many* variables.
And interestingly that makes things somewhat faster.

> And use a Task superclass will make the code much shorter I believe :)
Yes, I just like to demonstrate the lack of superclass or interface.

> Using Array.at(someIndex) is slightly faster than array[someIndex].
Yes, it is.
Using integer literals instead of constants made things a little
faster too.

> And I believe there is a linked list to handle a queue that probably
> could be replaced from a normal Array.
It could, but it seems to be ~10% slower

> Anyway, I believe that code should be rewritten from the specs, more
> than just 'ported' from some other language.

I'd certainly be interested in seeing other implementations - there
are procedural implementations at
   http://www.lissett.com/ben/bench3.htm 

Seems like Ruby shows best with an OO style implementation
   http://www.lissett.com/ben/bench1.htm

Phil, Gabriele, thanks for those suggestions.