Tanner Burson wrote:
I've tried to stay out of this thread, because I don't feel it's
providing, or furthering much intelligent discussion. But what on
earth are you attempting to say by this quote? Or are you just
throwing out random things for the sake of saying that somewhere, for
a given problem domain, there is a language more suited than Ruby? If
so thanks, point taken. If not would you mind clarifying by saying
something a bit more descriptive? Is the above quote actually in
reference to a given language you're attempting to introduce everyone
to? Or is it just a generic example with no meaning whatsoever?
Sorry.
Only 2 options were presented - slow-to-write fast-to-run C and
fast-to-write slow-to-run Ruby - there are other possibilities. That's
all.
Yes, of course. I was stating my personal views without claiming
generality.
Mmh, benchmarks seem to be good essentially for one thing, to judge
by this thread - propagate bad mood. I tried to change that a bit , without
success apparently.
If people should really be running away from Ruby or see
it as a language good for web-development only because of bad
benchmarks, my proposal would be to try to identify a small set
of features which are slowing down the relative performance of Ruby in
applications many people feel important and enhance them in a future version.
Maybe that's what this not-so providing thread could eventually do.
So far, I myself am quite happy with Ruby's performance, so I couldn't
open a list, but nevertheless, I think that if it is was possible to identify
some consensus about say the five biggest downslowers in important
applications
and fix them in a later version, this could achieve more than trying to
put much more work into fixing many more problems.
Best regards,
Axel