On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Christopher Dunn wrote:

> Try to write the following Fortran 77 program (note the
> 6 space indentation) in Ruby so that it looks as close
> to the Fortran as possible without extending Ruby:
>
>      program ii
>      integer i
>      do i=0,10
>         print*,i
>         if (i.gt.5) goto 1
>      enddo
> 1     print*,i*i
>      end
>
> Here's the Python candidate to date:
>
> for i in range(10):
>    #begin
>    print i
>    if i>5: break
>    #end
> print i*i
>
> -----------------------
> Better Python candidate...
>
>     from operator import gt
>     class goto1: pass
>     try:
>      for i in range(0,10):
>       print i
>       if gt(i,5): raise goto1
>      #endfor
>     except goto1: pass
>     finally:
>      print i*i
>     #end
>
> But why is anyone trying to convince a fortran programmer to use a slow,
> dynamic language? This reminds me: Too many of the language debates
> concentrate on static vs. dynamic typing. The real issue is type
> declarations. They waste time during proto-typing. But there is another way
> to eliminate those pesky declarations: type-inferencing.
>
> People are spending a lot of time trying to "optimize" Ruby, Python, and
> Perl. They're all hitting the same problem: dynamic typing. It's
> insurmountable. I was really hoping that Ruby could be THE language, but
> last night, browsing the Great Language Shootout page, I noticed a problem:
> Ruby is SLOW! Even compared to Python.

i've never had a problem with this and am routinely process files ranging from
40mb to 3gb - one only has to use c extensions.

why do you see dynamic typing as a contributor to slowdown?

> Boo and Ocaml are examples of fast, agile languages, and if more companies
> would adopt them, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

ocaml is very good - but it's a massive paradigm shift for most people's
thought train...  most real world problems are imperitive.

-a

-- 
judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama