In article <6.0.1.1.0.20040504075811.01d47d70 / pop.mail.yahoo.com>,
Jean-Hugues ROBERT  <jean_hugues_robert / yahoo.com> wrote:
>At 02:18 04/05/2004 +0900, you wrote:
>
>I personally use it to prototype a RAD telephony framework that should start
>working when it will be about 50 000 lines of code (15 000 as of today).
>I hope that some of the prototype will be production quality and that
>delivering will mainly imply optimizing small portion of the Ruby code. I am
>yet unsure about the exact extend because Ruby is rather slow for some of my
>needs. On the OTOH I think I have never been that much productive in my life.
>So, I am pretty sure that betting on Ruby was a good choice.
>
>If speed is less an issue, I believe that Ruby can do what Perl can do.

You can also write C-extensions for those methods that need to run faster.
(Also, I've heard that OO Ruby (which tends to be the default way of doing 
things in Ruby because it's so easy) is faster than OO Perl)

>You may have less libraries but you get a nicer object oriented syntax.

Actually, I tend to think that Ruby comes with more libraries (and 
functionality on those libraries) out-of-the-box than Perl does.  Sure 
Perl's CPAN is bigger than Ruby's RAA but consider that if you want to do 
a difference on a Perl Array you either need to write a function yourself 
or get something from the CPAN, while in Ruby you just use '-' to get 
the difference between two arrays (also compare String and Hash functions 
between the two languages, I think you'll find that Ruby has a richer set 
of built-in methods).

>Give it a try, you'll get hooked. Ruby: The drug language ;-)

Shhhh....  Not so loud, we don't want the DEA to find out. :)

Phil