I find this attitude is quite amazing. We all know that Ruby is not a best language in terms of performance. Even if we had Ruby 2.0 (YARV) delivered to us, Ruby's performance would still be a way behind those strong typed languges like ocaml or java. If you want to keep using Ruby, but sometimes you need a raw performance, you should learn C. It's not that bad, you know. If you always need a raw performance, then probably you are not using right tool for the job. just my 2 cents. On 7/14/06, Jamal Mazrui <Jamal.Mazrui / fcc.gov> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: list-bounce / example.com [mailto:list-bounce / example.com] On Behalf > Of Reggie Mr > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 6:56 AM > > > Write it C. > > I find this answer to be unsatisfactory. I do not know C and neither do > many others who like Ruby but want better performance. The knowledge > and syntax demands of programming in Ruby and C are worlds apart. It is > not much different than telling someone to go code in (modern) > Assembler! > > I think the more that Rubyists acknowledge and try to directly solve the > language's performance hindrance rather than rationalizing it away, the > better the prospects for the success of our beloved language. Of > course, better algorithms can produce better performance, but that > argument is also true for the languages with which Ruby compares > unfavorably in performance. Please do not claim that Ruby's adoption by > others is irrelevant: a good idea is worth spreading, and the more > users, the better library support and learning resources available to us > all. > Also, please do not tell me to rewrite Ruby, myself, if I care about > performance. As stated, I do not know C or have the interest and time > to devote to such an undertaking. I do promote Ruby to friends and > colleagues in ways that I can. We should be able to have a legitimate > desire for language improvements without being characterized as > ignoramuses, nay-sayers or lazy spectators. > > Regards, > Jamal > > -- Kent --- http://www.datanoise.com