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?