In article <F153pwOLZCHusMjQHtM00000ef3 / hotmail.com>,
g forever <g24ever / hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Interesting comparisons between languages for performance.
>see http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/craps.shtml
>Ruby does pretty well.
>
>List processing and a few other areas seem somewhat significantly slower.
>Beats Python and perl in almost all cases.

The  individual memory/cpu  numbers are  quite interesting.  Contrary to
what you  say, they show ruby  behing perl/python most of  the time (the
reason ruby fares quite well is that *all* tests were easily implemented
in  ruby while  other languages  were maybe  not quite  so fun  thus are
missing points on  unimplemented tests). Most interesting for  me is the
ackerman and heapsort which purely test the speed of the interpreter and
where ruby  is about twice as  slow as most other  interpreted languages
(which score close to each other,  with the exception of lua which seems
impressively fast).  This seems  to imply  that if we  look hard  at it,
there should be a way to speedup ruby by a factor of 2!

  The reason  why we all  prefer ruby is  also apparent: almost  all the
time the ruby solution is the shortest  and most elegant. If it could be
as fast, we would beat hell out of other languages!