not to mention that ruby is pretty fast anyway.

plus, a 'quick' language  is still slow
if the framework is bloated like crazy...

ruby's libraries are in general quick short and effient,
if you look at the source

> --- Ursprgliche Nachricht ---
> Von: gwtmp01 / mac.com
> An: ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org (ruby-talk ML)
> Betreff: Re: Investigating Ruby - key limitations ?
> Datum: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 03:32:38 +0900
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>