# Ruby and an efficiency **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [31 January 2007 13:17 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963 "2007-01-31T13:17:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Miroslaw\_Maziarz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9f8e36/32.png) [@Miroslaw\_Maziarz](https://rubytalk.org/u/Miroslaw_Maziarz)\ **Post date:** [31 January 2007 13:17 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/1 "2007-01-31T13:17:15Z")
Hi, Could anyone tell me or send links where I can find some reliable articles about efficiency of ruby. How I should coding to keep ruby efficient? Can I implement c programs in ruby cod? Greets, zirael ---
**Author:** ![Jan\_Svitok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@Jan\_Svitok](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jan_Svitok)\ **Post date:** [31 January 2007 14:19 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/2 "2007-01-31T14:19:30Z")
General: [http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/theFullyUpturnedBin.html](http://redhanded.hobix.com/inspect/theFullyUpturnedBin.html) [http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse\_thread/thread/b1a4bbd4d9ec6246/949cbb0290ac7bef#949cbb0290ac7bef](http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/b1a4bbd4d9ec6246/949cbb0290ac7bef#949cbb0290ac7bef) ruby-prof: > **[Profile and ruby-prof](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/08/profile-and-ruby-prof.html)** > > I've been playing with profile (from the Standard Library) and ruby-prof (the profile replacement written by Shugo Maeda and Charlie Savage... > **[Profile and ruby-prof: Getting Specific](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/08/profile-and-ruby-prof-getting-specific.html)** > > I'll close up my profiling trilogy with a little bit about profiling parts of your Ruby code. While ruby -r profile my\_program or ruby-pro... > **[ruby-prof and call graphs](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/08/ruby-prof-and-call-graphs.html)** > > Sorry it's been so long since my last post. I've been on vacation for the last week, and Internet access wasn't a big part of it. I did ge... RubyInline: > **[RubyInline, Making Making Things Faster Easier](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/07/rubyinline-making-making-things-faster.html)** > > Today on ruby-talk, I caught a thread called "For Performance, Write it in C" . I'd like to present a slight amendment to that thesis. Le... [http://segment7.net/projects/ruby/inline\_optimization.html](http://segment7.net/projects/ruby/inline_optimization.html) I guess somewhere on mongrel site (mongrel.rubyforge.org) there is an article about tuning performance, unfortunately the site is down, so I cannot check it. > **···** > > On 1/31/07, Miroslaw Maziarz \ wrote: > > > Hi, > > Could anyone tell me or send links where I can find some reliable articles > > about efficiency of ruby. > > How I should coding to keep ruby efficient? > > > > Can I implement c programs in ruby cod? > > > > Greets, > > zirael ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter](https://rubytalk.org/u/John_Carter)\ **Post date:** [1 February 2007 01:34 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/3 "2007-02-01T01:34:52Z")
Almost, but not quite, is...    [http://wiki.rubygarden.org/Ruby/page/show/RubyOptimization](http://wiki.rubygarden.org/Ruby/page/show/RubyOptimization) > **···** > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Miroslaw Maziarz wrote: > > > Could anyone tell me or send links where I can find some reliable articles > > about efficiency of ruby. > > How I should coding to keep ruby efficient? > > > > Can I implement c programs in ruby cod? > > rubyinline. > > John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639 > Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632 > PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz > New Zealand ---
**Author:** ![Guest15](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6de8d8/32.png) [@Guest15](https://rubytalk.org/u/Guest15)\ **Post date:** [31 January 2007 14:31 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/4 "2007-01-31T14:31:56Z")
> RubyInline: > [On Ruby: RubyInline, Making Making Things Faster Easier](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/07/rubyinline-making-making-things-faster.html) Some people dislike this example because there is so much room for algorithmic improvement (which I don't dispute). Another example, and one that uses the Ruby C API from RubyInline is here: > **[RubyInline: Going a bit Further](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/07/rubyinline-going-bit-further.html)** > > Last time around, I wrote about RubyInline and profiling, and raised a couple of questions. This time around I'm going to talk about RubyIn... > [http://segment7.net/projects/ruby/inline\_optimization.html](http://segment7.net/projects/ruby/inline_optimization.html) You might also find zenspider's posts interesting: [http://blog.zenspider.com/archives/2006/08/writing\_c\_exten.html](http://blog.zenspider.com/archives/2006/08/writing_c_exten.html) [http://blog.zenspider.com/archives/2006/09/recursive\_functions\_in\_rubyinline.html](http://blog.zenspider.com/archives/2006/09/recursive_functions_in_rubyinline.html) > **···** > > On 1/31/07, Jan Svitok \ wrote: > > > I guess somewhere on mongrel site (mongrel.rubyforge.org) there is an > > article about tuning performance, unfortunately the site is down, so I > > cannot check it. > > -- > thanks, > -pate > ------------------------- > > > **[On Ruby](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com)** > > > > The (mostly) tech related musings of Pat Eyler. Ruby, Erlang, Haskell, Scala, Ocaml, Publishing, and more ... ---
**Author:** ![Devin\_Mullins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/958977/32.png) [@Devin\_Mullins](https://rubytalk.org/u/Devin_Mullins)\ **Post date:** [1 February 2007 01:05 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/5 "2007-02-01T01:05:31Z")
Jan Svitok wrote: \> stuff Hrm. I was going to add these links to [http://wiki.rubygarden.org/Ruby/page/show/RubyTalkPermaThreads](http://wiki.rubygarden.org/Ruby/page/show/RubyTalkPermaThreads), but it got shoved into the Tarpit ("Banned URL in content"). Help, anybody? ---
**Author:** ![W\_James](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e274bd/32.png) [@W\_James](https://rubytalk.org/u/W_James)\ **Post date:** [31 January 2007 20:55 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/6 "2007-01-31T20:55:10Z")
This site shows a rather lackluster boost provided by RubyInline. Let's compare Ruby and Lua. # A Ruby program based on the one at the link above. class Array   # build the Array#ravg method in Ruby   def ravg     Float(self.inject {|sum, elem| sum += elem }) /       Float(self.length)   end end time = Time.now # build a good sized loop over a big array max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i a = (1..max\_size).to\_a total = 0 max\_loop.times {   total += a.ravg } p Time.now - time p total, total/max\_loop --- Ruby's output ----- 151.657 10000010.0 500000.5 -- A Lua program. function average( list )   local sum = 0   for i = 1, #list do     sum = sum + list[i]   end   return sum / #list end local max\_loop = 20 local max\_size = 1e6 time = os.clock() local a = {} for i = 1, max\_size do a[i] = i end local total = 0 for i = 1, max\_loop do   total = total + average( a ) end print( os.clock() - time ) print( total ) print( total/max\_loop ) --- output for Lua ----- 1.859 10000010 500000.5 --- output for LuaJIT ----- 0.891 10000010 500000.5 Based on these results and the ones shown at the link above: Speed compared to pure Ruby > **···** > > On Jan 31, 8:31 am, "pat eyler" \ wrote: > > > On 1/31/07, Jan Svitok \ wrote: > > > > \> RubyInline: > > \>[http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/07/rubyinline-making-making-things-f\.\.\](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/07/rubyinline-making-making-things-f%5C.%5C.%5C). > > > > Some people dislike this example because there is so much room for algorithmic > > improvement (which I don't dispute). Another example, and one that uses the > > Ruby C API from RubyInline is here: > > > > [On Ruby: RubyInline: Going a bit Further](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/07/rubyinline-going-bit-further.html) > > --------------------------- > RubyInline 4.19 > Lua 81.57 > LuaJIT 170.21 ---
**Author:** ![Ara.T.Howard6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@Ara.T.Howard6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ara.T.Howard6)\ **Post date:** [31 January 2007 21:17 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/7 "2007-01-31T21:17:04Z")
use sledgehammers to drive tacks in you want them in fast:    harp:~ \> cat a.rb    class Array      require 'narray'      def ravg() NArray.to\_na(self).mean end    end    time = Time.now    max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i    max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i    a = (1..max\_size).to\_a    total = 0    max\_loop.times { total += a.ravg }    p Time.now - time    p total, total/max\_loop    harp:~ \> ruby a.rb    4.451964    9998827.52    499941.376 even better    harp:~ \> cat a.rb    require 'narray'    time = Time.now    max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i    max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i    ( a = NArray.float max\_size ).indgen!    total = 0    max\_loop.times { total += a.mean }    p Time.now - time    p total, total/max\_loop    harp:~ \> ruby a.rb    0.266714    9999990.0    499999.5 and this is only a    harp:~ \> grep -i mhz /proc/cpuinfo    cpu MHz : 2386.616 it compiles on windows and \*nix. matz - can we have it in the core? 😉 -a > **···** > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, William James wrote: > > > > [On Ruby: RubyInline: Going a bit Further](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/07/rubyinline-going-bit-further.html) > > > > This site shows a rather lackluster boost provided by RubyInline. > > > > Let's compare Ruby and Lua. > > > > # A Ruby program based on the one at the link above. > > class Array > > # build the Array#ravg method in Ruby > > def ravg > >    Float(self.inject {|sum, elem| sum += elem }) / > >      Float(self.length) > > end > > end > > > > time = Time.now > > > > # build a good sized loop over a big array > > max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i > > max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i > > a = (1..max\_size).to\_a > > > > total = 0 > > max\_loop.times { > > total += a.ravg > > } > > p Time.now - time > > p total, total/max\_loop > > > > --- Ruby's output ----- > > 151.657 > > 10000010.0 > > 500000.5 > > -- > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. > simply reflect on that. > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Jason\_R](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/94ad74/32.png) [@Jason\_R](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jason_R)\ **Post date:** [31 January 2007 21:57 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/8 "2007-01-31T21:57:45Z")
For performance, use a compiled language? I like that advice MUCH better. And I don't like Lua. It feels like a scripting language, while Ruby feels like a dynamic programming language. Jason > **···** > > On 1/31/07, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov \ wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, William James wrote: > > > > \>\> [On Ruby: RubyInline: Going a bit Further](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/07/rubyinline-going-bit-further.html) > > \> > > \> This site shows a rather lackluster boost provided by RubyInline. > > \> > > \> Let's compare Ruby and Lua. > > \> > > \> # A Ruby program based on the one at the link above. > > \> class Array > > \> # build the Array#ravg method in Ruby > > \> def ravg > > \> Float(self.inject {|sum, elem| sum += elem }) / > > \> Float(self.length) > > \> end > > \> end > > \> > > \> time = Time.now > > \> > > \> # build a good sized loop over a big array > > \> max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i > > \> max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i > > \> a = (1..max\_size).to\_a > > \> > > \> total = 0 > > \> max\_loop.times { > > \> total += a.ravg > > \> } > > \> p Time.now - time > > \> p total, total/max\_loop > > \> > > \> --- Ruby's output ----- > > \> 151.657 > > \> 10000010.0 > > \> 500000.5 > > > > use sledgehammers to drive tacks in you want them in fast: > > > >    harp:~ \> cat a.rb > >    class Array > >      require 'narray' > >      def ravg() NArray.to\_na(self).mean end > >    end > > > >    time = Time.now > > > >    max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i > >    max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i > >    a = (1..max\_size).to\_a > > > >    total = 0 > >    max\_loop.times { total += a.ravg } > >    p Time.now - time > >    p total, total/max\_loop > > > >    harp:~ \> ruby a.rb > >    4.451964 > >    9998827.52 > >    499941.376 > > > > even better > > > >    harp:~ \> cat a.rb > >    require 'narray' > > > >    time = Time.now > > > >    max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i > >    max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i > >    ( a = NArray.float max\_size ).indgen! > > > >    total = 0 > >    max\_loop.times { total += a.mean } > >    p Time.now - time > >    p total, total/max\_loop > > > >    harp:~ \> ruby a.rb > >    0.266714 > >    9999990.0 > >    499999.5 > > > > and this is only a > > > >    harp:~ \> grep -i mhz /proc/cpuinfo > >    cpu MHz : 2386.616 > > > > it compiles on windows and \*nix. matz - can we have it in the core? > > > > 😉 > > > > -a > > -- > > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being > > better. > > simply reflect on that. > > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![W\_James](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e274bd/32.png) [@W\_James](https://rubytalk.org/u/W_James)\ **Post date:** [1 February 2007 17:25 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/9 "2007-02-01T17:25:09Z")
> \>\>[On Ruby: RubyInline: Going a bit Further](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/07/rubyinline-going-bit-further.html) > > \> This site shows a rather lackluster boost provided by RubyInline. > > \> Let's compare Ruby and Lua. > > \> # A Ruby program based on the one at the link above. > \> class Array > \> # build the Array#ravg method in Ruby > \> def ravg > \> Float(self.inject {|sum, elem| sum += elem }) / > \> Float(self.length) > \> end > \> end > > \> time = Time.now > > \> # build a good sized loop over a big array > \> max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i > \> max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i > \> a = (1..max\_size).to\_a > > \> total = 0 > \> max\_loop.times { > \> total += a.ravg > \> } > \> p Time.now - time > \> p total, total/max\_loop > > \> --- Ruby's output ----- > \> 151.657 > \> 10000010.0 > \> 500000.5 > > use sledgehammers to drive tacks in you want them in fast: > >    harp:~ \> cat a.rb >    class Array >      require 'narray' >      def ravg() NArray.to\_na(self).mean end >    end > >    time = Time.now > >    max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i >    max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i >    a = (1..max\_size).to\_a > >    total = 0 >    max\_loop.times { total += a.ravg } >    p Time.now - time >    p total, total/max\_loop > >    harp:~ \> ruby a.rb >    4.451964 >    9998827.52 >    499941.376 The results are wrong. 500000.5 is the correct average. And this is slower than pure interpreted Lua (on a 3.19GHz machine). Try it. --- output for Lua ----- 1.859 10000010 500000.5 --- output for LuaJIT ----- 0.891 10000010 500000.5 > even better > >    harp:~ \> cat a.rb >    require 'narray' > >    time = Time.now > >    max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i >    max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i >    ( a = NArray.float max\_size ).indgen! > >    total = 0 >    max\_loop.times { total += a.mean } >    p Time.now - time >    p total, total/max\_loop > >    harp:~ \> ruby a.rb >    0.266714 >    9999990.0 >    499999.5 > > and this is only a > >    harp:~ \> grep -i mhz /proc/cpuinfo >    cpu MHz : 2386.616 So a compiled, very low level, very crude language (i.e., C) using low-precision math can beat Lua. Not surprising. > **···** > > On Jan 31, 3:17 pm, ara.t.how...@noaa.gov wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, William James wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Ara.T.Howard6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@Ara.T.Howard6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ara.T.Howard6)\ **Post date:** [31 January 2007 22:14 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/10 "2007-01-31T22:14:16Z")
> For performance, use a compiled language? > > I like that advice MUCH better. seriously? you'd have to have serious performance contraints to do better that this > >    harp:~ \> ruby a.rb > >    0.266714 > >    9999990.0 > >    499999.5 which took less that 30 seconds to write? there are plenty time working in a compiled language makes sense, but the list of requirements for it to make financial sense is quite long imho - and i do write alot of c. kind regards. -a > **···** > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Jason Roelofs wrote: > -- > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. > simply reflect on that. > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_Lester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc8723/32.png) [@Andy\_Lester](https://rubytalk.org/u/Andy_Lester)\ **Post date:** [31 January 2007 23:50 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/11 "2007-01-31T23:50:06Z")
Ruby IS compiled, just like Perl. It's just done very quickly. > **···** > > On Jan 31, 2007, at 3:57 PM, Jason Roelofs wrote: > > > For performance, use a compiled language? > > > > I like that advice MUCH better. > > -- > Andy Lester =\> andy@petdance.com =\> [www.petdance.com](http://www.petdance.com) =\> AIM:petdance ---
**Author:** ![Ara.T.Howard6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@Ara.T.Howard6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ara.T.Howard6)\ **Post date:** [1 February 2007 18:05 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/12 "2007-02-01T18:05:09Z")
> The results are wrong. 500000.5 is the correct average. And this is slower > than pure interpreted Lua (on a 3.19GHz machine). Try it. the results are right, my code was wrong. here's the correct translation:    harp:~ \> cat a.rb    require 'narray'    time = Time.now    max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i    max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i    a = NArray.float(max\_size).indgen + 1    total = 0    max\_loop.times { total += a.mean }    p Time.now - time    p total, total/max\_loop    harp:~ \> ruby a.rb    0.283084    10000010.0    500000.5 > So a compiled, very low level, very crude language > (i.e., C) using low-precision math can beat Lua. > Not surprising. well, as i just showed - the math is not low precision and it's correct. remember lua, ruby, luajit, and ruby extensions are all \_\_exactly\_\_ the same thing, namely very low level very crude c. in all cases the good thing is that it's c that someone else has written. the point is that you need to get into c to go fast and that there's a variety of ways to do it. installing narray is just as good a way to do it as any other. regards. -a > **···** > > On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, William James wrote: > -- > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. > simply reflect on that. > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Ara.T.Howard6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@Ara.T.Howard6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ara.T.Howard6)\ **Post date:** [1 February 2007 18:25 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/13 "2007-02-01T18:25:47Z")
it isn't on my machine - but perhaps i'm doing something wrong? can you show it?    harp:~ \> cat a.lua    function average( list )      local sum = 0      for i = 1, #list do        sum = sum + list[i]      end      return sum / #list    end    local max\_loop = 20    local max\_size = 1e6    time = os.clock()    local a = {}    for i = 1, max\_size do a[i] = i end    local total = 0    for i = 1, max\_loop do      total = total + average( a )    end    print( os.clock() - time )    print( total )    print( total/max\_loop )    harp:~ \> lua a.lua    2.44    10000010    500000.5    harp:~ \> luac a.lua && lua luac.out    2.47    10000010    500000.5    harp:~ \> cat a.rb    require 'narray'    time = Time.now    max\_loop = (ARGV.shift || 20).to\_i    max\_size = (ARGV.shift || 1\_000\_000).to\_i    a = NArray.float(max\_size).indgen + 1    total = 0    max\_loop.times { total += a.mean }    p Time.now - time    p total, total/max\_loop    harp:~ \> ruby a.rb    0.287334    10000010.0    500000.5 regards. -a > **···** > > On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, William James wrote: > > > And this is slower than pure interpreted Lua (on a 3.19GHz machine). Try > > it. > > -- > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. > simply reflect on that. > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Jason\_R](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/94ad74/32.png) [@Jason\_R](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jason_R)\ **Post date:** [31 January 2007 22:20 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/14 "2007-01-31T22:20:06Z")
Eh, just being facetious, and narray is a C compiled extension so vis-a-vis... Jason > **···** > > On 1/31/07, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov \ wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Jason Roelofs wrote: > > > > \> For performance, use a compiled language? > > \> > > \> I like that advice MUCH better. > > > > seriously? you'd have to have serious performance contraints to do better > > that this > > > > \>\> harp:~ \> ruby a.rb > > \>\> 0.266714 > > \>\> 9999990.0 > > \>\> 499999.5 > > > > which took less that 30 seconds to write? > > > > there are plenty time working in a compiled language makes sense, but the > > list > > of requirements for it to make financial sense is quite long imho - and i > > do > > write alot of c. > > > > kind regards. > > > > -a > > -- > > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being > > better. > > simply reflect on that. > > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_Brannan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/76d3ee/32.png) [@Paul\_Brannan](https://rubytalk.org/u/Paul_Brannan)\ **Post date:** [1 February 2007 15:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/15 "2007-02-01T15:24:35Z")
Ruby traverses an AST to evaluate your code. It is not compiled to machine code. Paul > **···** > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:50:06AM +0900, Andy Lester wrote: > > > Ruby IS compiled, just like Perl. It's just done very quickly. ---
**Author:** ![PA1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/71c47a/32.png) [@PA1](https://rubytalk.org/u/PA1)\ **Post date:** [1 February 2007 18:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/16 "2007-02-01T18:32:44Z")
Not to beat a dead horse, but... [http://swik.net/Ruby/RedHanded/Mongrel’s+Going+to+Kill+Webrick,+Give+It+a+Month/b176](http://swik.net/Ruby/RedHanded/Mongrel's+Going+to+Kill+Webrick,+Give+It+a+Month/b176) > **···** > > On Feb 01, 2007, at 19:05, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote: > > > the results are right, my code was wrong. here's the correct translation: ---
**Author:** ![Ara.T.Howard6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/958977/32.png) [@Ara.T.Howard6](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ara.T.Howard6)\ **Post date:** [31 January 2007 22:30 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/17 "2007-01-31T22:30:34Z")
gotcha. still, \_\_ruby\_\_ is a compiled C extension 😉 -a > **···** > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Jason Roelofs wrote: > > > Eh, just being facetious, and narray is a C compiled extension so > > vis-a-vis... > > -- > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. > simply reflect on that. > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_Lester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc8723/32.png) [@Andy\_Lester](https://rubytalk.org/u/Andy_Lester)\ **Post date:** [1 February 2007 15:26 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/18 "2007-02-01T15:26:36Z")
I understand that. Close enough for 99% of purposes. > **···** > > On Feb 1, 2007, at 9:24 AM, Paul Brannan wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 08:50:06AM +0900, Andy Lester wrote: > > > > > Ruby IS compiled, just like Perl. It's just done very quickly. > > > > Ruby traverses an AST to evaluate your code. It is not compiled to > > machine code. > > -- > Andy Lester =\> andy@petdance.com =\> [www.petdance.com](http://www.petdance.com) =\> AIM:petdance ---
**Author:** ![Jason\_R](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/94ad74/32.png) [@Jason\_R](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jason_R)\ **Post date:** [1 February 2007 13:52 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/19 "2007-02-01T13:52:37Z")
Now that's just pushing it. Perl, Ruby, Python, Lua, Squirrel, are all WRITTEN in C, but they don't run at C speeds. There's still the interpretation overhead... And Andy? you're also pushing it. Compiled into machine code vs compiled into an interpreted byte code. You know what is being talked about here. Jason > **···** > > On 1/31/07, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov \ wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Jason Roelofs wrote: > > > > \> Eh, just being facetious, and narray is a C compiled extension so > > \> vis-a-vis... > > > > gotcha. still, \_\_ruby\_\_ is a compiled C extension 😉 > > > > -a > > -- > > we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being > > better. > > simply reflect on that. > > - the dalai lama ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_Lester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc8723/32.png) [@Andy\_Lester](https://rubytalk.org/u/Andy_Lester)\ **Post date:** [1 February 2007 13:58 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/20 "2007-02-01T13:58:54Z")
> Now that's just pushing it. Perl, Ruby, Python, Lua, Squirrel, are all > WRITTEN in C, but they don't run at C speeds. There's still the > interpretation overhead... > > And Andy? you're also pushing it. Compiled into machine code vs compiled > into an interpreted byte code. You know what is being talked about here. Wow, so angry. > **···** > > -- > Andy Lester =\> andy@petdance.com =\> [www.petdance.com](http://www.petdance.com) =\> AIM:petdance [Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963.md?page=2)