Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 21.08.2007 18:34, Mohit Sindhwani wrote:
>> Robert Klemme wrote:
>>> On 21.08.2007 17:27, Mohit Sindhwani wrote:
>>>> My only complaint with Ruby tends to be that on Windows, it takes a 
>>>> bit of time before the script loads.  But that said, the 
>>>> development time with Ruby is fantastic and lets us achieve things 
>>>> very very fast!
>>>
>>> Did you consider that this might be due to the AV engine your shop 
>>> uses?
>>>
>>>> It is likely that a lot of people are just using it on the side to 
>>>> get things done quickly and then on to something else?
>>>
>>> I guess I fall into that category: my main work is Java and 
>>> databases but I use Ruby frequently for things like evaluating log 
>>> files, generating statistics from them etc.
>>
>> The point regarding the AV is interesting.  We're using Symantec 
>> Norton AV.  I've never looked at it closely because I started with 
>> Rails and everyone on Rails-talk was complaining that Rails took ages 
>> on Windows.  So, I assumed that it was normal that a script took 4 - 
>> 6 seconds to start.  Any pointers what I may be looking for here?
>
> If you can switch off the AV engine and see whether your scripts come 
> up faster.  As a minimum you might be able to exclude your Ruby 
> directories from scanning.  It all depends on your admins.
>
> Kind regards
>
>     robert
>

Thanks Robert

I'll look into this tomorrow - it is an interesting thing to check out 
anyway.  On the other hand, the things we are working with do not get 
affected if a script takes a few seconds to start up!

Cheers,
Mohit.
8/22/2007 | 12:42 AM.