On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:13:31 +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

> stef wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:36:05 +0900, Roseanne Zhang wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> El Gato wrote:
>>>     
>>>> Ruby and the speed of C++.  Welcome to the club.  Strangely enough, 
>>>> Java's domain really is somewhere between each.  Plus, you'll never 
>>>> truly appreciate a language like Ruby until you deal with a more... 
>>>> verbose language such as Java.
>>>>       
>>> Everybody here or somewhere else take that for granted: Java is slower 
>>> than C++, but actually that is not true.
>>>
>>> I thought so too. However, my computational heavy practice proved, to 
>>> certain extent, otherwise.
>>>
>>> Interesting enough, I was a very experienced C++ programmer, and 
>>> learning Java in 2000. I got an very heavy algorithm job. I write the 
>>> same code in Java and C++. When the algorithm was relatively simple, my 
>>> C++ code was about twice faster than Java c++/Java = 610/1085. However, 
>>> when my algorithm became extremely heavy iteration, the result was 
>>> c++/Java = 26000/12000. Java was more than twice faster than C++.
>>>
>>> I asked several Java experts include Jason Hunter, Daniel Brookshier 
>>> about the question, why? The answers are the same, JIT!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> thanks for the info; i see that i was not the only one with that idea
>> (whether pre-conceived or not).
>> i have to say that o/all i have seen java slower than c++ but NOT always
>> e.g. my programmer friend who can write in java really complex aps yet
>> super fast, user friendly and pleasant to the eye....  he tells me it is
>> because he knows how to program (and because JVM's r better than they used
>> to be.)
>>
>> he might have a point there.....
>>   
> Ayup ... ask the jRuby folks about that :). Of course, there is YARV 
> coming down the pike, and Rubinius, and the various Ruby on CLR 
> implementations.
> 
> Then again, for pure number crunching, there's no reason in the world 
> Ruby's NArray can't run at full floating point speed on at least a 
> modern x86-32 platform. This stuff is what we call "embarrassingly 
> parallel". :)
>>
>>   
> 
>

sounds good to me ;)