Cheers,
Adam wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 02:08:45 +0200 Jonathan Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So Ruby is slower than Python for your application.
No, it is slower than Python for everything. Every single basic function
of the language is slower, conditionals, loops, instantiating objects,
calling methods, indexing arrays, string mangling, etc, etc. Ignoring
the benchmarks because they are benchmarks doesn't change this.
The author does not say that Ruby is slow
Yes he does. Unlike the legions of mindless rails drones, Matz doesn't
try to pretend ruby is perfect. Here's a slide from his presentation
talking about what sucks about ruby:
http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/rc2003/mgp00004.html
This slide shows that Matz know's that Ruby is slow(er) but the
important question is how slow it is.
Right, so as I said from the start, ruby is slow. And like I told you,
even the author of ruby says ruby is slow.
YEAH, RUBY IS SLOW. But the important question is how much slower for a
particular situation and if this is important compared with your
productivity.
The same argument can be made indeed be made for Ruby vs. Perl and in
some ways Python. Compare Ruby's OO vs. Perl's not to mention
MetaProgramming with Ruby.
Just because perl's OO syntax is ugly, doesn't mean it makes using it
slower.
It's OO syntax is ugly and it slows you down while your code grows and
grows. If I have to look 5 minutes at one line of Perl in order to
understand it, it is slower in means of productivity.
Ever looked into Ruby Meta Programming?
I do not say that Ruby is incredible fast. I say that in most cases it
will be fast enough and you should benchmark yourself. Further I see
great increases in productivity, even compared with Python or Perl.
No, you said its not slow. And it is slow.
I said that just generally saying that "Ruby is slow" is an
oversimplification. Everything depends on the context.
Not true in my case.
Because you are comparing writing CGIs in perl from scratch to using
a framework like rails in ruby?
No I'm comparing Djano, PHP Propel, Grails, Spring/Hibernate &co.
Again, speaking from my experience Ruby on Rails is more productive than
Catalist or Django, but that depends on your application and skills.
If you already know ruby, sure you will be faster in rails. If you
know more than one of the languages in question, or none of them, then
rails is not faster at all.
I know Perl, PHP, Python, and Java and again I CODE FASTER IN RUBY.
I am using Rails over a year now so I do not think that the hype got
into me. Maybe tha anti-hype got into you.
Or maybe I want people to know the truth so they realize the downsides
and can make an informed decision?
A fine informed descision if you just critizise Ruby/Rails and start a
flame war.
You are clearly making up nonsense
to claim rails is the greatest thing in existance.
Ever actualy read what I wrote?
I am saying there's
lots of frameworks that do the same thing just as well.
Which is more
likely based on buying into hype? If you want to think I have bought
into all the common sense hype, go right ahead.
I can only restate that the discussion is pointless at this stage as
none of us will change its opinion and personal attacks are starting to
replace rational arguments.
But it will help other people see that rails is not magical, or special,
or even particularly good. Just because you've invested too much time
to be willing to see reality, doesn't mean other people won't decide to
look into things themselves. If someone realizes catalyst, maypole,
django, fins, trails and nitro (and more) are out there too, then the
discussion helped someone. Pretending rails is the second coming of
christ does not help anyone.
I'm not saying that Rails is the second coming or that Django & co are
not worth a dime. I said that just saying that Ruby is slow is a too
easy answer and that Ruby/Rails make this up in productivity. Further in
most cases your bottleneck is not the language itself but I/O, databases
or other remote systems.
You just do not want to understand and flame Rails.
Adam
Jonathan
