Alexis Reigel wrote:
> 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

More ignorance.  Java has a JIT compiler which produces
machine code.