On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:13:31 +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

>  stef wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:36:05 +0900, Roseanne Zhang wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> El Gato wrote:
> >>     
> >>> Ruby and the speed of C++.  Welcome to the club.  Strangely enough, 
> >>> Java's domain really is somewhere between each.  Plus, you'll never 
> >>> truly appreciate a language like Ruby until you deal with a more... 
> >>> verbose language such as Java.
> >>>       
> >> Everybody here or somewhere else take that for granted: Java is slower 
> >> than C++, but actually that is not true.
> >>
> >> I thought so too. However, my computational heavy practice proved, to 
> >> certain extent, otherwise.
> >>
> >> Interesting enough, I was a very experienced C++ programmer, and 
> >> learning Java in 2000. I got an very heavy algorithm job. I write the 
> >> same code in Java and C++. When the algorithm was relatively simple, my 
> >> C++ code was about twice faster than Java c++/Java = 610/1085. However, 
> >> when my algorithm became extremely heavy iteration, the result was 
> >> c++/Java = 26000/12000. Java was more than twice faster than C++.
> >>
> >> I asked several Java experts include Jason Hunter, Daniel Brookshier 
> >> about the question, why? The answers are the same, JIT!!!!
> >>
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > thanks for the info; i see that i was not the only one with that idea
> > (whether pre-conceived or not).
> > i have to say that o/all i have seen java slower than c++ but NOT always
> > e.g. my programmer friend who can write in java really complex aps yet
> > super fast, user friendly and pleasant to the eye....  he tells me it is
> > because he knows how to program (and because JVM's r better than they used
> > to be.)
> >
> > he might have a point there.....
> >   
>  Ayup ... ask the jRuby folks about that :). Of course, there is YARV 
>  coming down the pike, and Rubinius, and the various Ruby on CLR 
>  implementations.
>  
>  Then again, for pure number crunching, there's no reason in the world 
>  Ruby's NArray can't run at full floating point speed on at least a 
>  modern x86-32 platform. This stuff is what we call "embarrassingly 
>  parallel". :)
> >
> >   
>  
> 

sounds good to me ;)