>> When you follow the Ruby vs Perl link, you are treated to a nice picture
>> and some numbers, all of which (you would assume from reading the page)
>> offer some insight into the comparative merits of the languages.
>>
>> In this case, the site _does_ proclaim a winner in any number of
>> categories.
>
> Yes - under said conditions, said program X was measured to be A,B,C
> and said program Y was measured to be D,E,F.
>
> imo that's not The issue.

 Aha! It appears that this is where we'll have to agree to disagree.  For
me this is The issue.  There were no conditions mentioned on the page
that you linked to.

There are so many factors that contribute to any measure of performance
for a "program" that any comparison must be qualified to the point of
irrelevance.  Some such factors might be:

- Compiled vs Interpreted
-- Implementation of the Compiler/Interpreter
--- Version of the implementation
-- Compilation flags

- Implementation of the algorithm
-- Suitability of the implementation to the algorithm

- System Environment and its affects on the execution environment.

I could spend all day listing considerations like these.  To attempt to
boil all of this down to one number for any measure of performance is
naive.  These numbers aren't useful to the casual observer who will
misunderstand them, nor are they useful to the person who spends the time
to investigate the execution environment and draw their own conclusions.

Good luck with the site Isaac.  I hope that it continues to go well for
you and that you continue to learn from it.