> Lett moma <moma / example.net>
> Aihe: Re: Benchmark Mono - Ruby
> 
> E S wrote:
> >>Lett Kent Sibilev <ksibilev / bellsouth.net>
> >>Aihe: Re: Benchmark Mono - Ruby
> >>
> >>Consider this 'tuning':
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > The kind of magnitude in difference that the OP cited is certainly
> > something to worry about, performance-wise. A couple seconds here or
> > there in large operations is OK, of course. I'm not going to argue
> > against it if someone comes up with a Ruby implementation that runs
> > as fast as native C, but in general Ruby's performance is well above
> > adequate. If one finds a serious bottleneck, it may first be possible
> > to be solved simply by rewriting the Ruby. That failing, dropping 
> > down to Inline/Ruby2C/C will certainly remove the problem--and the 
> > two former with relative ease since one doesn't have to actually 
> > write C. 
> > 
> > Here Mr. Sibilev succintly isolated the bit of code that was assessed
> > to be a candidate for lower-level implementation for performance 
> > enhancement and enhanced its performance.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Source code in Mono (as in the Microsoft .Net tool) is first
> ->Compiled into a byte code (CLI, Common Language Infrastructure),
>    --> And CLI code is compiled by JIT (Just in Time Compiler) into 
> machine code.
> 
> So the first run is rather slow, but subsequent calls should hasten.
> 
> CLI spesification:
> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm
> 
> So it's not fair to compare Ruby's runtime against Mono or .Net.

I think it's fair and most prudent to compare programs written in
Ruby to programs written in Whatever both for performance and their
respective capabilities.

When examining the fastest methods to get from place A to place B,
you wouldn't disqualify someone for using a car because it's 'unfair'
to those whose solutions include walking?

> ---------------------------
> RUBY needs a Parrot !
> 
> Parrot will be a "common language runtime" for dynamic languages such as 
> Ruby, Python and Perl. It will be a competitor to (ecma's)CLI.
> 
> Parrot  will probably implement a JIT too.
> 
> Parrot project
> http://www.parrotcode.org/docs/intro.html
> 
> http://www.linux-mag.com/2003-04/parrot_01.html
> Page-5 has some explanation why implementing a new 'Parrot' and not 
> targeting the existing (ecma)CLI and Java VM.
> 
> + Dynamic type systems in Python/Ruby/Perl are too complex for (ecma's) 
> frigid CLI spec!
> ----------------------------

I agree that a VM might be a good solution for Ruby. Whether that's 
Parrot, YARV or something else I can't say, though I'm leaning for
a Ruby-specific one since it'd quite likely be superior to any sort
of a common bytecode.

> But I would like to see some official comparison between PYTHON and 
> RUBY. Have u seen any?
> 
> 
> // moma
>     http://www.futuredesktop.org/OpenOffice.html
>     http://www.futuredesktop.org/how2burn.html

E