On Friday, 11 April 2003 at 17:47:39 +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> 
> "Brian Candler" <B.Candler / pobox.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:20030411093207.A35304 / linnet.org...
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 03:10:27AM +0900, Jim Freeze wrote:
> > > Below are the results I get from your benchmarks. I added
> 
> Even if there are no improvements possible you should judge the effort of
> improving speed of ruby vs. perl or others agains the effort to maintain a
> changed ruby and the efforts saved by rubys higher development speed.  For
> some script it's surely more efficient to write it in one hour and have it
> run in another than to tweak a high performance perl script in four hours
> that then runs in 15 minutes.
 
 For new scripts what you say is true. But I can't accept the fact 
 that there are no improvements possible. And Ruby has no advantage 
 when the Perl scripts already exist and are not being changed.


-- 
Jim Freeze
----------
"This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System.  If this had been an
actual emergency, do you really think we'd stick around to tell you?"