In article <67a2229205040719147fec0f8a / mail.gmail.com>,
Bill Guindon  <agorilla / gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 7, 2005 10:04 PM, Phil Tomson <ptkwt / aracnet.com> wrote:
>> In article <20050407220145.GI23956 / garnet.tc.umn.edu>,
>> Thomas E Enebo  <enebo / acm.org> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 08 Apr 2005, Lothar Scholz defenestrated me:
>> >>
>> >> Yes maybe its possible to transfer part of the language (all?) into an
>> >> smalltalk VM. But you can never get all the binary extensions to work,
>> >> an emulation layer would kill all your speed benefits if possible
>> >> at all. So maybe you should simply announce a ruby branch called
>SmallRuby,
>> >> since this would not have so much todo with the current ruby anymore.
>> >
>> >  OTOH, if it is 30x faster and makes an alternate implementation of socket
>> 
>> I'm very skeptical about the 30x faster claim.
>> 
>
>I might be skeptical, but if I voice my skepticism loud enough, I may
>discourage those who might try (and may succeed).
>
>So yeah... I think that 30x faster is quite possible ;-)
>

Please, prove my skepticism to be wrong.  A Ruby that was 30x faster (on 
the same hardware) would be great.  As I said in the other post 
responding to Avi, if it's possible to speed things up that much with a 
SmallTalk VM, maybe we should be studying said VM to figure out how to 
make it happen in YARV (since matz has recently said that YARV is the 
future VM for Ruby).

Phil