On Nov 8, 2005, at 12:12 PM, mortench wrote:
> but that is not the issue here. I understand that Ruby may be fast
> enough for a lot of things but in order to be able to use it for
> all/most things the overhead need to go down.

How should one interpret this statement?  Clearly lots of people
are using Ruby for a wide variety of projects.  It may be true
that for *your* application the run-time overhead is a problem
but it seems presumptuous to extend that claim to "all/most"
projects.  In some cases, throwing hardware at the problem can
solve the overhead issues and can often be cheaper if the
development costs can be reduced by use of the "slower" language.

Gary Wright