On 10/30/06, Zed A. Shaw <zedshaw / zedshaw.com> wrote:
> Well, that's kind of just Ruby on Windows for ya. My unofficial
> experience (which everyone constantly blasts me for, so I'm obviously
> wrong) is that Ruby on Win32 is about 1/10th the speed of Linux 2.6 on
> the same computer. This is with the exact same non-rails Mongrel
> handler tests I run. Cygwin is then about 1/2 the speed of that.

Zed, your wounded act is wearing thin, if it was ever amusing to begin
with. It also doesn't come close to the truth (your claims about being
blasted). Your numbers look suspicious to me, but I'm also not doing any
performance testing on any of this stuff.

> Yet, nobody can explain it or seems to actually care since we all know
> that Ruby is perfection from the gods and should not be questioned.

Gee. There've been at least two explanations given. By me. One of which
was in a thread in the last week.

1. File open operations are slower on Windows. Period.
2. The current compiler used has a significant lack of optimisation
   compared to modern compilers (e.g., anything after 2000 -- since the
   current compiler was released in 1998).

So no, Zed, your wounded act doesn't actually buy you anything here,
because (1) I can explain it and (2) I care, but not so much that I'm
willing to force other precipitous decisions.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin / zieglers.ca