Re: Ruby Scales just fine !
- From: Michael Hollins <mick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:12:35 +1000
Ruby Maniac wrote:
Another favorite argument for those who love slow inefficient
languages revolves around the feeling that being disk I/O bound means
the language's performance doesn't matter. I mean, if the language is
only being executed 1% of the time and the disk light is on 99% of the
time who cares how fast the language is because it only gets 1% of the
CPU. <-- This is an ancient argument without merit these days.
Why does it have no merit? If I am writing an app that needs to write to disk transactionally (a pretty common type of app), then the significant latency involved in writing to disk is just as much (or more) of an issue today as it was in "ancient" times.
http://herbsutter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!2D4327CC297151BB!304.entry
.
- References:
- Ruby Scales just fine !
- From: Ruby Maniac
- Re: Ruby Scales just fine !
- From: Eric Hodel
- Re: Ruby Scales just fine !
- From: Rimantas Liubertas
- Re: Ruby Scales just fine !
- From: Ruby Maniac
- Re: Ruby Scales just fine !
- From: Rimantas Liubertas
- Re: Ruby Scales just fine !
- From: Ruby Maniac
- Ruby Scales just fine !
- Prev by Date: Re: Running shell scripts
- Next by Date: Re: This is why Ruby 1.8.6 can never be made to run anywhere
- Previous by thread: Re: Ruby Scales just fine !
- Next by thread: Re: Ruby Scales just fine !
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|