On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Amos wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> 2008/11/21 Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> >>>> Don't waste your time on a language that does 90% for you >>>> sadly has no compiler to native machine code. >> >> i'd have said the same thing about javascript a couple of years ago. > > Yes this is *exactly* my point. Python/Ruby are great high level languages. > But until there is any real progress in getting them to work at native > speeds (or at least in the python case, better speeds are possible) it is > not an alternative for HP applications, while for HA it can be a choice > because of the design.
people are making progress. http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/05/31/maglev-rocks/ http://blog.fallingsnow.net/2008/09/05/rubinius-status/ for high performance it may be worth porting some bits to lower-level languages (e.g: the map call). but some people at the api 0.6 hack weekend had some ideas for improving performance while staying within RoR. > Faster is overrated; hence we are looking here at I/O and scheduling > bottlenecks. Not even a Pentium X is going to get more speed out of a sata > harddisk. install a raid array? ;-) at what point do you decide that your code is "fast enough"? cheers, matt _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev