--tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 05:18:06AM +0900, Kevin Anon wrote:
> 
> I really appreciate the suggestions regarding improvements in the code, 
> but the program has to be as close to identical as possible across the 
> three languages, barring only syntactical differences. I'll definitely 
> look your suggestions over to improve my understanding of Ruby, however.

This is actually a problematic approach to comparison.  Different
languages are optimizable for different algorithmic approaches, and what
seems the same between two languages based on similar syntax may actually
be semantically different so that behind the scenes you end up comparing
apples and oranges.  A deeper understanding of the differences between
language implementations is needed than just the existence of similar
syntactical forms if you want to perform an apples to apples comparison.

In general, Ruby will tend to be slower than Java and C#, but how much
slower depends on the specific form of your source code and the specific
Ruby implementation you use -- and there may even be times when a Ruby
operation might be faster than an equivalent in Java or C#.  As I
indicated above, though, some of that variance will depend on whether
what looks the same syntactically might actually be very different behind
the scenes.  For instance, in some respects a Ruby symbol is more like a
Java string primitive than a Ruby string (and working with strings in
Ruby is typically much slower for execution time than working with
symbols).

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk52nqcACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKWZDACgzof+B1NrhByEKmCQoktK7qCD
cSsAoOuspnb6DqHod+q0B1p6TxPluFeg
do
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB--