Re: IBM vs. Microsoft vs. ... Ruby?

On Sep 30, 2005, at 12:01 PM, bonefry wrote:

Unfortunatelly, without a faster VM, we won't have those libraries too
soon. Because if they are done in pure Ruby they might get too slow,


You are totally using guesswork here and it's poorly researched guess
work at that.


No, I am using experience from PHP who has the same problem. Google for
NuSOAP and why it's not everyone's favorite choice ;)

Ruby has a SOAP library in its standard library and I've never seen a single complaint about its speed. That would seem to imply more differences than similarities.

I guess I just don't feel you are giving us solid examples of Ruby being "too slow"? Yes, our VM isn't the fastest. We're working to correct that very thing, but in the meantime you seem to be implying that it is crippling the language and that's just not the case.

Ruby is like most other programming languages, find the right algorithm and it's fast enough.

Also, pure Ruby libraries, should be easier to install on a server, or am I wrong ?

Sure. I would prefer to have everything I can in pure Ruby and most of the time that seems very reasonable. When it's not, we can haul out C.

And Ruby currently chokes on O(n).


Oh please!  That's not even intelligent enough to provoke a comment.
Now you are simply ignoring reality.


Err, although I may have exagerated a little, when was the last time
you did more than linear alghorithms in Ruby ?

I'm sure it hasn't been too long. I don't even start thinking about something like that until the software turns up to slow. If I code something up, and it works on the data I need to process in the time I need it done, who cares how much extra processing it's doing? Not all data sets have millions of members.

James Edward Gray II



.