Ruby is a wonderful language, and just about my favorite. But it's well known that it is one of the slower ones. For an application like GO, with lots of logic, 300X doesn't surprise me.
- Don Chuck Paulson wrote: > > My 2 cents about languages. > > > > C is the universal “assembly language”. I don’t think I’ve ever used a > computer family that didn’t have a C compiler on it (after C was > invented of course). Often new languages, to get started, will just > translate into C code and then compile with the C compiler. > > > > I wrote my first Go programs earlier this year. I first used Ruby and > it was short and easy to write. The GTP protocol (enough for CGOS) > took only about 1 page of code. However in timing tests, it could only > do about 30 game simulations per second. This was unacceptable and I > abandoned Ruby. > > > > Next I translated the ideas into C++. Everything was more work, but I > anticipated a 10-20 times speed up so it seemed the tradeoff would be > worth it. After finishing, I did the same timing tests as with Ruby > and it did 9000 game simulations per second without much optimization. > I knew, of course, that Ruby is slower than C++ but a factor of 300 is > amazing. It helps to have explicit control of memory and mature C > compilers that generate fast code. > > > > I am still wondering how Ruby could be so much slower than C++. > Perhaps this problem is just not suited for Ruby. > > > > Chuck Paulson > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
