Zed Shaw wrote:
> Hey Peter, thanks for deliberately ignoring my whining.  Now, if you'll
> excuse me I have to go and continue to security audit the C extensions
> in Mongrel so that I can be sure there's no buffer overflows.
>
> Man, if only Ruby were faster.  Then I wouldn't have to write so much
> stuff in C and could just worry about crafting beautiful code.  Oh well,
> back to work on my C .... I mean Ruby ... program.
>   
Just so that you don't go to bed all grumpy I will just make it clear 
that my post was in no way a dig at your coding skills or belittling you 
contribution to the Ruby community. However to say that the Ruby 
community is ignoring performance is simply not true. For what you are 
doing it clearly is an issue, for others it is not. Perhaps if I had 
used the word 'bitching' rather than 'whining' it might have read 
better. Who knows, is 'bitching' less negative? More masculine? God knows.

As to converting things to C. I've had to convert my graphics tools from 
Ruby to C to get the performance I required. But coding them in Ruby 
allowed me to play about with various algorithms
to find the best before committing my time to crafting the C code. I 
never expected Ruby (or anything but C) to have been fast enough to 
process more than 400,000 images on the kit that I had. Same with the 
database tools. I do not see this as a problem with Ruby. It would have 
been really nice, in terms of writing code, to be able to do everything 
in Ruby but there is a trade off. As you move away from assembler you 
start trade finely honed code for faster development. Even C is a trade off.