Roger Pack ڧѧ 17.09.2012 22:06:
> So basically if you're ok with a "somewhat slow" end product, Ruby is
> still grand, because programming in it is funner.

I want to note that there isn't a general measure for slowness. Is it
fast to crank 100MB of data in 1s? 10s? 1h? The answer doesn't depend
on the kind of data, or your programming language, or whatever. If the
application's behavior is within your (business) requirements, it's 
fast.
And most often the requirement isn't "response time under 10ms" 
(through
such applications definitely do exist), but the "lowest TCO", and 
hardware
scales way better than humans.

That being said, I won't write number crunching algorithms in Ruby, or 
work
with gigabyte-sized datasets.

-- 
   WBR, Peter Zotov.