Stephen Waits wrote:
> E. Saynatkari wrote:
> 
>>
>> Post the code somewhere, there might be room for improvement
>> in the algorithm though it will still be considerably slower.
> 
> 
> It looks, to me, like he attached his code to the OP.
> 
> Regardless, it doesn't matter.  Algorithmic improvements may help both
> the C++ and Ruby versions - but it's not going to change the fact that
> one is a relatively low-level language, compiled to native machine code,
> and the other is an interpreted dynamic language.  To compare them is
> either ridiculous, or more likely in this case, simply ignorant.
> 
> --Steve
> 
Why should that be ridiculous or ignorant?
I stated that I was aware of the differences between interpreted and
compiled languages. But that does not change the fact that I believe
that this does not explain the performance gap. An execution time of
27.65 seconds against 0.33 seconds is not just nothing is it? It's a
factor of over 80 times. Besides, I implemented the same code in java
too, which isn't native code as well and runs in a virtual machine too,
and it executed in about the same time as c++.