On 6/13/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy / yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nuralanur / aol.com wrote:
> -snip-
> > So, my personal benchmark would be:
> > How long does it take for me to implement problem X in code and execute it
> > in language Y versus language Z?
> > In reality, for me, this will often mean: I can use C and a stupid problem
> > finding strategy (which is fast, but has to check a zillion things, so it's
> > slow after all) against a more intelligent strategy, which I could implement
> > faster in Ruby (also, it doesn't seem such a daunting task to start
> > implementing it anymore).
> 
> Or with Language XXX(TM) we could develop an intelligent strategy and
> then, after high-level experimentation, compile the code to give a
> program with performance 2x-3x of the gnarly C program.
> 
I've tried to stay out of this thread, because I don't feel it's
providing, or furthering much intelligent discussion.  But what on
earth are you attempting to say by this quote?  Or are you just
throwing out random things for the sake of saying that somewhere, for
a given problem domain, there is a language more suited than Ruby?  If
so thanks, point taken.  If not would you mind clarifying by saying
something a bit more descriptive?  Is the above quote actually in
reference to a given language you're attempting to introduce everyone
to?  Or is it just a generic example with no meaning whatsoever?

> 
> 


-- 
===Tanner Burson===
tanner.burson / gmail.com
http://tannerburson.com   <---Might even work one day...