On Jun 9, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Lothar Scholz wrote:

> Hello Ryan,
>
> RL> But still, at this point in the state of computing, I would not  
> use Ruby
> RL> in certain applications:
>
> RL> - operating system level code.
> RL> - heavy duty 3D rendering.
> RL> - device drivers.
> RL> - any major number crunching (math, video processing, low-level  
> image
> RL> manipulation.)
>
> Don't forget

 From a person that maintains a Ruby IDE, you're comments always  
surprise me...

> - code that must do a lot of parsing

I've actually used Ruby for a pretty hefty parsing application in my  
work.  It was my experience that this is an area where Ruby really  
shines.  Funny to see you bring it up as the opposite of that now.

> - code that works on large datasets (a GC problem)

I don't have much experience here, so I'll take your word for it.

> - any algorithmic problem

You serious?!  I have to say that I think that's absurd.  Browsing  
RubyForge and RAA makes me think I'm not alone either.  Have you  
looked at the Ruby Quiz solutions?

So basically what you're saying is that Ruby is unusable for most  
applications?  I think it's safe to say you're in the minority with  
this opinion.

I hear you, that Ruby is slow.  I agree.  I work with Java and it's  
definitely faster.  I've benchmarked similar Perl scripts and they're  
faster.  Ruby may even be the slowest language I use and the amount  
of time this actually affects me is incredibly low.  I want YARV as  
much as you do, I'm sure, but your comments seem ridiculous to me.

James Edward Gray II