In article <932reg$44t$1 / schur.institut.math.jussieu.fr>, Jean Michel <jmichel / schur.institut.math.jussieu.fr> wrote: >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). Actually, in the overall scoreboard on that page, Ruby is shown to be ahead of Python (Ruby at 422, Python at 412 - higherscores are better) and slower than Perl (to be expected at this point, really - but we're not THAT far off, Perl is at 476). I really don't understand why Java scores higher than gcc - they must've sped up Java a lot since I played with it last (it has been a few years). And then there's the Winner (of these tests anyway) Ocaml - I'm not sure what that is, but it beat out the next closest one (Java) by 114 points! >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 Note that ruby comes in just behind perl in this test (well it is about 10 seconds behind). This seems to be a test of recursion. > 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! Seems that Ruby is already doing pretty well in this particular suite of tests. And there probably is room for some improvement in some of these tests. Phil