------art_51845_9540966.1152896689340
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

For what it's worth here is my solution to the performance problem. When
performance becomes an issue - I switch to chicken scheme
http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/. I'm more productive coding
in ruby but occasionally speed becomes an issue. C is far too much hassle
but ruby translates nicely into scheme and chicken scheme compiles to C and
in my experience this solves any performance problems I have.I realize this
is not the solution you are looking for but I thought it might be
interesting none the less. Scheme, in my opinion, is on par with  Ruby with
respect to power and expressiveness but it is much less "human friendly". I
find translating from Ruby to scheme generally very easy but even though I
have been writing Ruby for 1/10 the time I have been writing scheme I am
*much* faster at coding Ruby than scheme.

With regards to deflecting attention away from Ruby I would disagree that
that is an issue. Ruby stands strong on its merits. Bringing other languages
to the table does not dilute Ruby's strengths. For the occasional
performance critical problem where Ruby by itself is a non-ideal solution
dropping back to the "prototype in ruby, implement in X" is reasonable. What
was interesting about this discussion for me were the X's proposed. In my
case the X (scheme) has many of the same features that make Ruby powerful.

Matt
--
On 7/14/06, Jamal Mazrui <Jamal.Mazrui / fcc.gov> wrote:
>
> In answer to the multiple messages recommending that I learn C or
> Assembler as the solution for performance, it appears that you did not
> read my lips:  I want to use Ruby, not a typically tedious, often
> verbose, yet also cryptic strongly-typed language!  I have read
> tutorials on such languages before and found their nature to be counter
> to my desire for rapid application development.  I understand that no
> single language is superior in all criteria, and that trade-offs exist
> between ease of development and speed of execution.  I just want a
> better combination of these and believe it is possible for the Ruby
> language to progress in this way.  I think the more that others also
> express this interest, rather than deflecting attention away from Ruby,
> the more likely that our community will find the means to deliver these
> advancements.
>
> The trend in universities, by the way, is away from teaching native C.
> Instead, Java and C# for the .NET platform are taking over.  That argues
> against learning C specifically to compensate for Ruby's weakness.  If I
> were to invest in the hundreds of hours to become facile in a strongly
> typed language, C# would be the one most likely to benefit my
> productivity and career.  (As much as I like Ruby, it is a means to an
> end for me, not an end in itself.)
>
> Jamal
>
>


--

------art_51845_9540966.1152896689340--