How slow could ruby be compared to Python or Perl?

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by sullivanz.pku@gmail.com, Mar 31, 2006.

  1. Guest

    This might be a stupid question, but I really wonder if ruby is much
    slower than python and perl.
    , Mar 31, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Konstantin Levinski, Mar 31, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Isaac Gouy Guest

    Isaac Gouy, Apr 4, 2006
    #3
  4. T24gMy8zMS8wNiwgc3VsbGl2YW56LnBrdUBnbWFpbC5jb20gPHN1bGxpdmFuei5wa3VAZ21haWwu
    Y29tPiB3cm90ZToKPiBUaGlzIG1pZ2h0IGJlIGEgc3R1cGlkIHF1ZXN0aW9uLCBidXQgSSByZWFs
    bHkgd29uZGVyIGlmIHJ1YnkgaXMgbXVjaAo+IHNsb3dlciB0aGFuIHB5dGhvbiBhbmQgcGVybC4K
    ClRyeSBpdC4gQW5kIGlnbm9yZSBhbnlvbmUgd2hvIHRlbGxzIHlvdSB0byBsb29rIGF0IHRoZSB1
    dHRlcmx5IHVzZWxlc3MKQWxpb3RoIHNob290b3V0LiBJdCBkb2Vzbid0IG1vZGVsIGFueXRoaW5n
    IHJlYWwtd29ybGQgYW5kIGRvZXNuJ3QKYWN0dWFsbHkgdGVsbCB5b3UgYW55dGhpbmcgYWJvdXQg
    cGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgZm9yIHlvdXIgcHJvYmxlbXMuCgpJIGhhdmVuJ3QgY2hlY2tlZCBpbiBhIHdo
    aWxlLCBidXQgdGhleSB3ZXJlbid0IHZlcnkgaG9uZXN0IGFib3V0IHRoZWlyCmFpbXMgbGFzdCB0
    aW1lIEkgY2hlY2tlZCwgZWl0aGVyLiBJdCdzIHNpbXBseSBhIG1hdHRlciBvZgpzZWxmLXByb21v
    dGlvbiBhbmQgY29tcGFyaXNvbiBmb3IgSW5hbmUgR3VsbGlibGVzLgoKLWF1c3RpbgotLQpBdXN0
    aW4gWmllZ2xlciAqIGhhbG9zdGF0dWVAZ21haWwuY29tCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICogQWx0ZXJu
    YXRlOiBhdXN0aW5AaGFsb3N0YXR1ZS5jYQo=
    Austin Ziegler, Apr 4, 2006
    #4
  5. Isaac Gouy Guest

    Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > On 3/31/06, <> wrote:
    > > This might be a stupid question, but I really wonder if ruby is much
    > > slower than python and perl.

    >
    > Try it. And ignore anyone who tells you to look at the utterly useless
    > Alioth shootout. It doesn't model anything real-world and doesn't
    > actually tell you anything about performance for your problems.
    >
    > I haven't checked in a while, but they weren't very honest about their
    > aims last time I checked, either. It's simply a matter of
    > self-promotion and comparison for Inane Gullibles.
    >
    > -austin
    > --
    > Austin Ziegler *
    > * Alternate:


    "I haven't checked in a while..."
    Then your comments would apply to the Alioth shootout in... 2004?

    There's nothing wrong with saying how little can be learned from
    measuring small programs, but saying don't look suggests there's
    something to be hidden.
    Isaac Gouy, Apr 4, 2006
    #5
  6. Isaac Gouy Guest

    Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    > > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > > On 3/31/06, <> wrote:
    > > > > This might be a stupid question, but I really wonder if ruby is much
    > > > > slower than python and perl.
    > > > Try it. And ignore anyone who tells you to look at the utterly useless
    > > > Alioth shootout. It doesn't model anything real-world and doesn't
    > > > actually tell you anything about performance for your problems.
    > > >
    > > > I haven't checked in a while, but they weren't very honest about their
    > > > aims last time I checked, either. It's simply a matter of
    > > > self-promotion and comparison for Inane Gullibles.

    > > "I haven't checked in a while..."
    > > Then your comments would apply to the Alioth shootout in... 2004?

    >
    > 2005. I avoid the shootout like the plague, until you pop up and
    > pretend that your pet project has any relevance to anything.
    >
    > > There's nothing wrong with saying how little can be learned from
    > > measuring small programs, but saying don't look suggests there's
    > > something to be hidden.

    >
    > No, saying "don't look" says that your aims are bogus, your tests are
    > worse, your validation is nonsensical to nonexistent, and your
    > presentation is dishonest.
    >
    > Saying "don't look" says that the Alioth shootout isn't worth the
    > server space it takes up. It's certainly not worth the amount of
    > pimping you do for it.
    >
    > -austin
    > --
    > Austin Ziegler *
    > * Alternate:


    And you believe all that without even looking - truly remarkable!

    (I suppose there are people who make judgements about Ruby without
    looking.)
    Isaac Gouy, Apr 4, 2006
    #6
  7. On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    >
    > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > Saying "don't look" says that the Alioth shootout isn't worth the
    > > server space it takes up. It's certainly not worth the amount of
    > > pimping you do for it.
    > >
    > > -austin
    > > --
    > > Austin Ziegler *
    > > * Alternate:

    >
    > And you believe all that without even looking - truly remarkable!
    >
    > (I suppose there are people who make judgements about Ruby without
    > looking.)


    Can we avoid this shootout thing again. Anyone interested in the
    history of this thread can find plenty on the archive, we don't need
    to rehash it.

    That having been said, comparing speed is a tough job. I'll
    re-iterate the standard advice which seems to work to the OP. Try
    just writing whatever you want in ruby first... then if you find
    bottle necks, try to optimize them, and if you can't, C extensions are
    always an option for the really computation heavy stuff. I'm not sure
    i've seen anyone switch to perl or python because of speed, because
    the gain is going to be something small if anything.

    So... worry about performance when it becomes an issue. Or... if you
    know how to optimize perl or python to make it sing, maybe go ahead
    and use them. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure you'll find that speed
    hangups can be avoided when needed in Ruby.
    Gregory Brown, Apr 4, 2006
    #7
  8. Robert Dober Guest

    ------=_Part_20255_25604588.1144180637053
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Content-Disposition: inline

    On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    > > > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > > > On 3/31/06, <> wrote=

    :
    > > > > > This might be a stupid question, but I really wonder if ruby is

    > much
    > > > > > slower than python and perl.
    > > > > Try it. And ignore anyone who tells you to look at the utterly

    > useless
    > > > > Alioth shootout. It doesn't model anything real-world and doesn't
    > > > > actually tell you anything about performance for your problems.
    > > > >
    > > > > I haven't checked in a while, but they weren't very honest about

    > their
    > > > > aims last time I checked, either. It's simply a matter of
    > > > > self-promotion and comparison for Inane Gullibles.
    > > > "I haven't checked in a while..."
    > > > Then your comments would apply to the Alioth shootout in... 2004?

    > >
    > > 2005. I avoid the shootout like the plague, until you pop up and
    > > pretend that your pet project has any relevance to anything.
    > >
    > > > There's nothing wrong with saying how little can be learned from
    > > > measuring small programs, but saying don't look suggests there's
    > > > something to be hidden.

    > >
    > > No, saying "don't look" says that your aims are bogus, your tests are
    > > worse, your validation is nonsensical to nonexistent, and your
    > > presentation is dishonest.
    > >
    > > Saying "don't look" says that the Alioth shootout isn't worth the
    > > server space it takes up. It's certainly not worth the amount of
    > > pimping you do for it.
    > >
    > > -austin
    > > --
    > > Austin Ziegler *
    > > * Alternate:

    >
    > And you believe all that without even looking - truly remarkable!
    >
    > (I suppose there are people who make judgements about Ruby without
    > looking.)
    >
    >
    > I understand that you are upset, but I *had* a look and I think I have

    enough reason to consider the shootout irrelevant:
    First, everybody can contribute ones program, like that, so what if I want
    ruby to look bad, well easy enough, there comes one example into mind (c.f.
    http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=3Dbinarytrees&l=
    ang=3Druby),
    the program does not even run.
    Second I have often seen ruby1.9 being used, futile ( so I have my two
    favorite words together "futile" and "irrelevant" ;)
    to explain that 1.9 is not to be used for such a thing.
    I checked a different program, sorry cannot give you the link, from the
    shootout, it was written for slow performance period.
    And last but not least, performance rarely matters and when it *really*
    matters you need a change of magnitude.
    And for that to accomplish you have to extend ruby in C or interface with C=
    ,
    which is pretty easy compared to python or - even worse - perl.

    So I honestly understand why Austin is upset although, I agree with you,
    scientifcly speaking his attitude is wrong.
    But I believe his conclusions are correct nontheless.

    Cheers
    Robert


    --
    Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la b=EAtise humaine ; en ce qui
    concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.

    - Albert Einstein

    ------=_Part_20255_25604588.1144180637053--
    Robert Dober, Apr 4, 2006
    #8
  9. ------=_Part_19431_10386275.1144181324253
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Content-Disposition: inline

    On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    > > > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > > > On 3/31/06, <> wrote=

    :
    > > > > > This might be a stupid question, but I really wonder if ruby is

    > much
    > > > > > slower than python and perl.
    > > > > Try it. And ignore anyone who tells you to look at the utterly

    > useless
    > > > > Alioth shootout. It doesn't model anything real-world and doesn't
    > > > > actually tell you anything about performance for your problems.
    > > > >
    > > > > I haven't checked in a while, but they weren't very honest about

    > their
    > > > > aims last time I checked, either. It's simply a matter of
    > > > > self-promotion and comparison for Inane Gullibles.
    > > > "I haven't checked in a while..."
    > > > Then your comments would apply to the Alioth shootout in... 2004?

    > >
    > > 2005. I avoid the shootout like the plague, until you pop up and
    > > pretend that your pet project has any relevance to anything.
    > >
    > > > There's nothing wrong with saying how little can be learned from
    > > > measuring small programs, but saying don't look suggests there's
    > > > something to be hidden.

    > >
    > > No, saying "don't look" says that your aims are bogus, your tests are
    > > worse, your validation is nonsensical to nonexistent, and your
    > > presentation is dishonest.
    > >
    > > Saying "don't look" says that the Alioth shootout isn't worth the
    > > server space it takes up. It's certainly not worth the amount of
    > > pimping you do for it.
    > >
    > > -austin
    > > --
    > > Austin Ziegler *
    > > * Alternate:

    >
    > And you believe all that without even looking - truly remarkable!
    >
    > (I suppose there are people who make judgements about Ruby without
    > looking.)



    I've looked at your site, nearly every time you've come in posting specific
    benchmarks about something or other. I think its current incarnation is by
    far the worst. You use certain performance and code characteristics, but
    instead of quantifying the actual values in the comparisons (only in the
    individual listings) you list them as, X is Y times better/worse than Z.
    That tells me next to nothing. 1.1 times faster means very little at 10ms,
    but quite a lot at 1hr. While I don't always agree with Austin's attitude
    towards this subject, I do agree that the site is rarely useful, and often
    causes people to mis-represent a given statistic.


    --
    =3D=3D=3DTanner Burson=3D=3D=3D

    http://tannerburson.com <---Might even work one day...

    ------=_Part_19431_10386275.1144181324253--
    Tanner Burson, Apr 4, 2006
    #9
  10. Isaac Gouy Guest

    Robert Dober wrote:
    > On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > > On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    > > > > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > > > > On 3/31/06, <> wrote:
    > > > > > > This might be a stupid question, but I really wonder if ruby is

    > > much
    > > > > > > slower than python and perl.
    > > > > > Try it. And ignore anyone who tells you to look at the utterly

    > > useless
    > > > > > Alioth shootout. It doesn't model anything real-world and doesn't
    > > > > > actually tell you anything about performance for your problems.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I haven't checked in a while, but they weren't very honest about

    > > their
    > > > > > aims last time I checked, either. It's simply a matter of
    > > > > > self-promotion and comparison for Inane Gullibles.
    > > > > "I haven't checked in a while..."
    > > > > Then your comments would apply to the Alioth shootout in... 2004?
    > > >
    > > > 2005. I avoid the shootout like the plague, until you pop up and
    > > > pretend that your pet project has any relevance to anything.
    > > >
    > > > > There's nothing wrong with saying how little can be learned from
    > > > > measuring small programs, but saying don't look suggests there's
    > > > > something to be hidden.
    > > >
    > > > No, saying "don't look" says that your aims are bogus, your tests are
    > > > worse, your validation is nonsensical to nonexistent, and your
    > > > presentation is dishonest.
    > > >
    > > > Saying "don't look" says that the Alioth shootout isn't worth the
    > > > server space it takes up. It's certainly not worth the amount of
    > > > pimping you do for it.
    > > >
    > > > -austin
    > > > --
    > > > Austin Ziegler *
    > > > * Alternate:

    > >
    > > And you believe all that without even looking - truly remarkable!
    > >
    > > (I suppose there are people who make judgements about Ruby without
    > > looking.)
    > >
    > >
    > > I understand that you are upset, but I *had* a look and I think I have

    > enough reason to consider the shootout irrelevant:


    > First, everybody can contribute ones program, like that, so what if I want
    > ruby to look bad, well easy enough,


    Until someone who wants to make Ruby look good contributes a better
    program ;-)


    > there comes one example into mind (c.f.
    > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=binarytrees&lang=ruby),
    > the program does not even run.


    Thank you, I can see that program has been measured with too short a
    timeout.
    The same program is shown here
    http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=binarytrees&lang=ruby&id=0


    > Second I have often seen ruby1.9 being used, futile ( so I have my two
    > favorite words together "futile" and "irrelevant" ;)
    > to explain that 1.9 is not to be used for such a thing.


    The measurements on Gentoo : Intel are made for Ruby 1.8.4
    http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=ruby


    > I checked a different program, sorry cannot give you the link, from the
    > shootout, it was written for slow performance period.


    Standard answer: contribute better programs.


    > And last but not least, performance rarely matters and when it *really*
    > matters you need a change of magnitude.
    > And for that to accomplish you have to extend ruby in C or interface withC,
    > which is pretty easy compared to python or - even worse - perl.


    http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/miscfile.php?file=benchmarking&title=Flawed Benchmarks

    >
    > So I honestly understand why Austin is upset although, I agree with you,
    > scientifcly speaking his attitude is wrong.
    > But I believe his conclusions are correct nontheless.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Robert
    >
    >
    > --
    > Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la bêtise humaine ; en ce qui
    > concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.
    >
    > - Albert Einstein
    >
    > ------=_Part_20255_25604588.1144180637053--
    Isaac Gouy, Apr 5, 2006
    #10
  11. Isaac Gouy Guest

    Tanner Burson wrote:
    > On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > > On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    > > > > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > > > > On 3/31/06, <> wrote:
    > > > > > > This might be a stupid question, but I really wonder if ruby is

    > > much
    > > > > > > slower than python and perl.
    > > > > > Try it. And ignore anyone who tells you to look at the utterly

    > > useless
    > > > > > Alioth shootout. It doesn't model anything real-world and doesn't
    > > > > > actually tell you anything about performance for your problems.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I haven't checked in a while, but they weren't very honest about

    > > their
    > > > > > aims last time I checked, either. It's simply a matter of
    > > > > > self-promotion and comparison for Inane Gullibles.
    > > > > "I haven't checked in a while..."
    > > > > Then your comments would apply to the Alioth shootout in... 2004?
    > > >
    > > > 2005. I avoid the shootout like the plague, until you pop up and
    > > > pretend that your pet project has any relevance to anything.
    > > >
    > > > > There's nothing wrong with saying how little can be learned from
    > > > > measuring small programs, but saying don't look suggests there's
    > > > > something to be hidden.
    > > >
    > > > No, saying "don't look" says that your aims are bogus, your tests are
    > > > worse, your validation is nonsensical to nonexistent, and your
    > > > presentation is dishonest.
    > > >
    > > > Saying "don't look" says that the Alioth shootout isn't worth the
    > > > server space it takes up. It's certainly not worth the amount of
    > > > pimping you do for it.
    > > >
    > > > -austin
    > > > --
    > > > Austin Ziegler *
    > > > * Alternate:

    > >
    > > And you believe all that without even looking - truly remarkable!
    > >
    > > (I suppose there are people who make judgements about Ruby without
    > > looking.)

    >
    >
    > I've looked at your site, nearly every time you've come in posting specific
    > benchmarks about something or other. I think its current incarnation is by
    > far the worst. You use certain performance and code characteristics, but
    > instead of quantifying the actual values in the comparisons (only in the
    > individual listings) you list them as, X is Y times better/worse than Z.
    > That tells me next to nothing. 1.1 times faster means very little at 10ms,
    > but quite a lot at 1hr.


    On that page ( http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/ruby.php ) the
    first paragraph includes a link to the "CPU time and Memory use
    measurements"
    http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=ruby


    > While I don't always agree with Austin's attitude
    > towards this subject, I do agree that the site is rarely useful, and often
    > causes people to mis-represent a given statistic.


    I also hear positive comments.

    >
    >
    > --
    > ===Tanner Burson===
    >
    > http://tannerburson.com <---Might even work one day...
    >
    > ------=_Part_19431_10386275.1144181324253--
    Isaac Gouy, Apr 5, 2006
    #11
  12. On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:

    > > While I don't always agree with Austin's attitude
    > > towards this subject, I do agree that the site is rarely useful, and of=

    ten
    > > causes people to mis-represent a given statistic.

    >
    > I also hear positive comments.


    On ruby-talk?

    Seriously, it's fine that you have this thing and maybe *someone*
    finds it useful, but it doesn't seem well recieved on it's list and
    the bottom line is it's not very useful for answering the OP's
    question.

    People have made their points loud and clear. Perhaps you should do
    the kind thing and just let it go. If there is a community which
    embraces your shootout, discuss it with them.
    Gregory Brown, Apr 5, 2006
    #12
  13. T24gNC80LzA2LCBJc2FhYyBHb3V5IDxpZ291eUB5YWhvby5jb20+IHdyb3RlOgo+ID4gSSBjaGVj
    a2VkIGEgZGlmZmVyZW50IHByb2dyYW0sIHNvcnJ5IGNhbm5vdCBnaXZlIHlvdSB0aGUgbGluaywg
    ZnJvbSB0aGUKPiA+IHNob290b3V0LCBpdCB3YXMgd3JpdHRlbiBmb3Igc2xvdyBwZXJmb3JtYW5j
    ZSBwZXJpb2QuCj4KPiBTdGFuZGFyZCBhbnN3ZXI6IGNvbnRyaWJ1dGUgYmV0dGVyIHByb2dyYW1z
    LgoKU3RhbmRhcmQgYW5zd2VyOiBkb24ndCBwYXJ0aWNpcGF0ZSBpbiB0aGlzLiBUaGVyZSdzIG5v
    dGhpbmcgaG9uZXN0CmFib3V0IGl0LCBhbmQgSXNhYWMgaXMgZXNzZW50aWFsbHkgbm8gYmV0dGVy
    IHRoYW4gYSBzcGFtbWVyIHNpbmNlIGhpcwpwcmltYXJ5IGNvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiB0byBydWJ5LXRh
    bGsgaXMgdG8gcHJvbW90ZSB0aGlzIHNpdGUgd2hpY2gKcHJvdmlkZXMgbm8gdmFsdWUgdG8gYW55
    b25lIGFuZCwgSU1PLCBwcm92aWRlcyBoYXJtIHRvIGFueW9uZSB3aG8KdGFrZXMgdGhlIHNpdGUg
    c2VyaW91c2x5LgoKLWF1c3RpbgotLQpBdXN0aW4gWmllZ2xlciAqIGhhbG9zdGF0dWVAZ21haWwu
    Y29tCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICogQWx0ZXJuYXRlOiBhdXN0aW5AaGFsb3N0YXR1ZS5jYQo=
    Austin Ziegler, Apr 5, 2006
    #13
  14. ------=_Part_57698_7621691.1144205632938
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Content-Disposition: inline

    Hey, if it makes y'all feel any better, Ruby is still worlds faster than
    JRuby (though we're naturally working on that :)

    --
    Charles Oliver Nutter @ headius.blogspot.com
    JRuby Developer @ jruby.sourceforge.net
    Application Architect @ www.ventera.com

    ------=_Part_57698_7621691.1144205632938--
    Charles O Nutter, Apr 5, 2006
    #14
  15. Neil Wilson Guest

    Slower in what sense. It's certainly not slower to develop with than
    either of its scripting colleagues and I find it easier to read.

    The real question these days is is the language fast enough. You have
    to remember that processor power is 50 to 100 cheaper than manpower. I
    can afford to waste several days of processor time if I can save an
    hour of manpower.
    Neil Wilson, Apr 5, 2006
    #15
  16. Isaac Gouy Guest

    Charles O Nutter wrote:
    > Hey, if it makes y'all feel any better, Ruby is still worlds faster than
    > JRuby (though we're naturally working on that :)


    (Depending what faster means) Rebol, and Rexx, and Groovy and... :)
    Isaac Gouy, Apr 5, 2006
    #16
  17. Isaac Gouy Guest

    Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > On 4/4/06, Robert Dober <> wrote:
    > > I understand that you are upset, but I *had* a look and I think I have
    > > enough reason to consider the shootout irrelevant: First, everybody
    > > can contribute ones program, like that, so what if I want ruby to look
    > > bad, well easy enough, there comes one example into mind [...] the
    > > program does not even run.

    >
    > The better example is the Ackermann. On Unix, at least, the stack is
    > able to be reset with ulimit -- and the Ruby run of Ackermann does not
    > use this, even though Ruby's stack frame is known to be larger than most
    > other programming languages.


    1) Ackermann is only shown on the "Old Doug Bagley Benchmarks" website

    2) The Ruby run of Ackermann /does/ reset the stack with ulimit
    http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/old/benchmark.php?test=ackermann&lang=all

    3) The other websites do show simple recursive functions, including
    ackermann, and the Ruby run /does/ reset the stack with ulimit
    http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=recursive&lang=all

    >
    > The Python implementation does some stack manipulation without which the
    > program won't run *at all* (even with ulimit). One of the Perl
    > implementations is so compact as to be unreadable -- and it's done so
    > deliberately.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > > So I honestly understand why Austin is upset although, I agree with
    > > you, scientifcly speaking his attitude is wrong. But I believe his
    > > conclusions are correct nontheless.

    >
    > Scientifically, my attitude toward the Alioth shootout is spot on. It's
    > not only benchmarking (lies, damned lies and [statistics | benchmarks]),
    > but it's completely dishonest benchmarking for the reasons that you've
    > indicated above, and (last I checked) the website claimed far more than
    > is possible, especially since there is no control factors or proper
    > statistical analysis.
    >
    > -austin
    > --
    > Austin Ziegler *
    > * Alternate:
    Isaac Gouy, Apr 5, 2006
    #17
  18. Isaac Gouy Guest

    Gregory Brown wrote:
    > On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    >
    > > > While I don't always agree with Austin's attitude
    > > > towards this subject, I do agree that the site is rarely useful, and often
    > > > causes people to mis-represent a given statistic.

    > >
    > > I also hear positive comments.

    >
    > On ruby-talk?


    Commenting on ruby-talk would invite personal abuse.

    >
    > Seriously, it's fine that you have this thing and maybe *someone*
    > finds it useful, but it doesn't seem well recieved on it's list and
    > the bottom line is it's not very useful for answering the OP's
    > question.
    >
    > People have made their points loud and clear. Perhaps you should do
    > the kind thing and just let it go. If there is a community which
    > embraces your shootout, discuss it with them.


    And when their points are demonstrably untrue, should we let it go?
    Isaac Gouy, Apr 5, 2006
    #18
  19. Isaac Gouy Guest

    Robert Dober wrote:
    > On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > > On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <> wrote:
    > > > > Austin Ziegler wrote:
    > > > > > On 3/31/06, <> wrote:
    > > > > > > This might be a stupid question, but I really wonder if ruby is

    > > much
    > > > > > > slower than python and perl.
    > > > > > Try it. And ignore anyone who tells you to look at the utterly

    > > useless
    > > > > > Alioth shootout. It doesn't model anything real-world and doesn't
    > > > > > actually tell you anything about performance for your problems.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I haven't checked in a while, but they weren't very honest about

    > > their
    > > > > > aims last time I checked, either. It's simply a matter of
    > > > > > self-promotion and comparison for Inane Gullibles.
    > > > > "I haven't checked in a while..."
    > > > > Then your comments would apply to the Alioth shootout in... 2004?
    > > >
    > > > 2005. I avoid the shootout like the plague, until you pop up and
    > > > pretend that your pet project has any relevance to anything.
    > > >
    > > > > There's nothing wrong with saying how little can be learned from
    > > > > measuring small programs, but saying don't look suggests there's
    > > > > something to be hidden.
    > > >
    > > > No, saying "don't look" says that your aims are bogus, your tests are
    > > > worse, your validation is nonsensical to nonexistent, and your
    > > > presentation is dishonest.
    > > >
    > > > Saying "don't look" says that the Alioth shootout isn't worth the
    > > > server space it takes up. It's certainly not worth the amount of
    > > > pimping you do for it.
    > > >
    > > > -austin
    > > > --
    > > > Austin Ziegler *
    > > > * Alternate:

    > >
    > > And you believe all that without even looking - truly remarkable!
    > >
    > > (I suppose there are people who make judgements about Ruby without
    > > looking.)
    > >
    > >
    > > I understand that you are upset, but I *had* a look and I think I have

    > enough reason to consider the shootout irrelevant:
    > First, everybody can contribute ones program, like that, so what if I want
    > ruby to look bad, well easy enough, there comes one example into mind (c.f.
    > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=binarytrees&lang=ruby),
    > the program does not even run.


    The binary-trees program has been re-measured with the correct timeout
    http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=binarytrees&lang=ruby&id=0

    > Second I have often seen ruby1.9 being used, futile ( so I have my two
    > favorite words together "futile" and "irrelevant" ;)
    > to explain that 1.9 is not to be used for such a thing.


    ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [i486-linux] has been re-installed on Debian
    : AMD™ Sempron™ and all the Ruby programs have been re-measured
    http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/ruby.php

    If there are other problems please report them
    http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/faq.php#report

    > I checked a different program, sorry cannot give you the link, from the
    > shootout, it was written for slow performance period.
    > And last but not least, performance rarely matters and when it *really*
    > matters you need a change of magnitude.
    > And for that to accomplish you have to extend ruby in C or interface withC,
    > which is pretty easy compared to python or - even worse - perl.
    >
    > So I honestly understand why Austin is upset although, I agree with you,
    > scientifcly speaking his attitude is wrong.
    > But I believe his conclusions are correct nontheless.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Robert
    >
    >
    > --
    > Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la bêtise humaine ; en ce qui
    > concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.
    >
    > - Albert Einstein
    >
    > ------=_Part_20255_25604588.1144180637053--
    Isaac Gouy, Apr 10, 2006
    #19
  20. gregarican Guest

    sullivanz wrote:

    > This might be a stupid question, but I really wonder if ruby is much
    > slower than python and perl.


    I know that I might be chiming in long after the fact on this thread,
    but after awhile I get tired of the complaints regarding the speed of
    Ruby. Not that the poster's original entry on this thread was
    complaining, but others have posted complaints and in today's age of
    rapid increases in RAM, HDD storage, CPU speed, etc. what's considered
    slow is still pretty darn fast for most cases. It's kind of like the
    long-standing knock of Java being slow. Starting up the JVM itself
    takes awhile, but I recall back in the day around 1997 or so. That
    thing could seem to take literally minutes to crank up on the old
    hardware. Now it takes a couple of seconds in most cases.

    There are many concepts involves in optimal computer programming. Code
    elegance. Code readability. Code maintainability. Code execution speed.
    Code brevity. These can sometimes be diametrically opposed.

    I like Matz' explanations behind why he started to create Ruby. He
    wanted a language that made him happy and that was enjoyable to program
    in. He certainly didn't say what was bare-metal-fast to code in because
    he wanted to win some shootout by running routine xyz in 1.2
    milliseconds.

    Most of the scripting languages take longer to execute things. But if I
    was just looking for raw execution speed I'd stick with assembly or C.
    I am looking for enjoyable, inuitive coding. That's why I like
    languages like Ruby. Sure one can always refactor their code to make it
    as clean and efficient as possible. But after a couple of iterations of
    that if it's broke don't fix it IMHO :-/
    gregarican, Apr 10, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ike

    Slow compared to php

    Ike, Aug 11, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    511
  2. Kevin
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    914
    Chris Uppal
    Feb 12, 2006
  3. Christian Seberino
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    858
  4. rtilley

    Is python very slow compared to C

    rtilley, Feb 11, 2006, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,004
  5. Chris Angelico

    Python is horribly slow compared to bash!!

    Chris Angelico, May 22, 2014, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    47
    Dennis Lee Bieber
    May 28, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page