Eric Mahurin wrote:
> --- Isaac Gouy <igouy / yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric Mahurin wrote:
> > -snip-
> > > Compare that to ruby - from about 0.25% to 10% of C
> > (language
> > > shootout).
> >
> > Which language shootout?
> >
> > On these Ruby can be 100x slower than C (and is never shown
> > faster than
> > C).
> >
> >
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=icc&sort=fullcpu
> >
> >
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/old/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=icc&sort=fullcpu
>
> That's the one I'm talking about.  I said the speed of ruby was
> 0.25% to 10% of C.  That means 10X to 400X slower.  Compare
> that to "self" which is no more than about 5X slower.

Say X times faster or slower and even I will understand what you mean
;-)

>
> I wouldn't mind seeing "self" in your benchmarks too using the
> self virtual machine.  This would be the only dynamically typed
> language that is even in the same magnitude of performance as
> C.

Some would be in the same magnitude of performance if we reduced the C
run time :-)
Ruby is less than 10x slower than C on tcp-request.
Lua is less than 10x slower on 2 or 3.
Python is less than 10x slower on 2 or 3.
etc

And Ruby is missing programs where it could be expected to perform
well.

>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com