# Ruby and an efficiency

**URL:** <https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963>\
**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:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Forum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/43a26b/32.png) [@Forum](https://rubytalk.org/u/Forum)\
**Post date:** [1 February 2007 15:59 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963/21 "2007-02-01T15:59:56Z")

</div>

Which is a pitty because it is very reasonable to give a second thought to  
"compiled language"  
also I think that it is completely clear what you mean Jason it is  
completely clear to me what Andy means.

Compiled to what? Now I am pushing it, but parsing into an AST and than  
interpreting it is not considered as compilation, \*right now\*. And if  
tomorrow the AST interpreter includes JIT?

Cheers  
Robert

> **···**
>
> On 2/1/07, Andy Lester \<andy@petdance.com\> wrote:
> 
> > \> 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
> 
> --  
> We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.  
> In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.  
> But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important  
> things.  
> -Anonymous

[Previous page](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-and-an-efficiency/34963.md?page=1)