Franz Hartmann wrote:
>> From: Michael Ulm <michael.ulm / isis-papyrus.com>
>>
>> I do not say that object oriented programming is much faster than
>> normal, so not everyone is saying that :-)
> 
> Okay, everyone except for you, $\infty - 1$ :-)

Nor do I.  OO code may be faster to write (and re-write), but it has 
never been faster to execute.  On average, OO code execution speed is 
very similar to non-OO code.  On top of that, Ruby is dynamically typed, 
unlike TurboPascal or C++ or VB, which adds more execution-time 
overhead.  Finally, the current Ruby interpreter has sub-optimal 
performance because it is still rather new compared to mature languages 
like Smalltalk.

Real numerical simulations (as opposed to toy projects) demand efficient 
use of hardware resources, and they do not benefit as much from the OO 
design style.  All this makes Ruby a poor choice, unless you are just 
playing around.

>> Trying to learn object oriented programming is a noble goal. If you
>> want fast and object oriented, use C++.
> 
> Uuargh! must i?

It sounds like you have already made up your mind, so why ask?

-- 
Glenn Parker | glenn.parker-AT-comcast.net | <http://www.tetrafoil.com/>