On Aug 8, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 8/8/06, Isaac Gouy <igouy / yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Austin, I knew I could rely on you!
>
> Certainly I'll post in response as long as you're going to shill
> something as worthless as the shootout.
>
> I'm not surprised when Ruby shows up relatively fast; the choice of
> algorithm almost always beats out the choice of language.
>
> I'm just surprised it took you so long in the thread to start pushing
> the shootout so hard. You're usually not so restrained before your
> shilling starts.

I have to agree with Austin here.  There are benchmarks inside that  
specify "this benchmark must use the implementation of the random  
number generator from benchmark X".

Requirements like that make the results even more bogus.  Sure, Ruby  
has slower method dispatch, but now you've got and made the benchmark  
unrealistic by skipping over the core libraries of all your  
benchmarked applications.

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain / segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com