> I understand that Ruby is being developed towards the realization
> of a VM for byte-code execution.  My question is, will the
> interpreter function of Ruby remain?  Will I be able to have the
> best of both worlds -- rapid development _and_ performance?
>
> I looked at the comparison of various computer programming
> languages at The Great Computer Language Shootout
> [http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/] and was a bit
> disappointed to see Ruby rated as low as it was in performance.
> This is the only reason I have not yet adopted Ruby.

Last I checked, the person running that site had left it frozen in 
time. It is _not_ current. IIRC, it reflects neither the best Ruby 
implementation of the tests, nor the current version of Ruby.

Performance is relative in many ways. When I rewrote our C/bash shell 
scripts for building Mac OS X installer packages & disk images in Ruby, 
time to build a complete installer metapackage went from about 5 
minutes to about 20 seconds. I did the rewrite just to make the scripts 
modular and maintainable, the performance increase was an unexpected 
and hugely positive side effect.

My personal impression is that Ruby is already the best of both worlds.

Chris

--
Can't you feel the peace and contentment in this block of code? Ruby is 
the language Buddha would have programmed in.
   - Sean Russell, http://www.germane-software.com/software/rexml/

On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 7:30 PM, <prosys / chartermi.net> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm new here, and I hope I don't offend anyone by mentioning a
> different programming language here on Ruby-Talk.
>
> I have two questions that are borne of the fact that I have been
> searching for a language that provides both rapid development
> (via an interperter) and performance (via compilation to either
> byte- or native code).
>
> I understand that Ruby is being developed towards the realization
> of a VM for byte-code execution.  My question is, will the
> interpreter function of Ruby remain?  Will I be able to have the
> best of both worlds -- rapid development _and_ performance?
>
> I looked at the comparison of various computer programming
> languages at The Great Computer Language Shootout
> [http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/] and was a bit
> disappointed to see Ruby rated as low as it was in performance.
> This is the only reason I have not yet adopted Ruby.
>
> I did notice OCaml (Objective Caml) at the top of the list --
> right up there with C.  And, in my investigation, I discovered
> the OCaml can be run as a script interpreter _and_ that it can
> also compile byte-code and native code!  Wow -- just what I've
> been looking for.  But for some strange reason, I am still drawn
> to Ruby.
>
> Could someone please offer a comparison between OCaml and Ruby?
>
> Thank you all for your time.
>
> Best,
> Terry
>