4 ms·
You're criticizing Java for being slow, and then presenting Ruby as an alternative. You do realise that Java is up to 100 times faster than Ruby: http://shootou
by rabbitfang 14y ago
You're criticizing Java for being slow, and then presenting Ruby as an alternative. You do realise that Java is up to 100 times faster than Ruby:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=yarv&lang2=java http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all....
And on multicore systems Java up to 300x faster than Ruby:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=yarv&lang2=java http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al...
...alternatively combine the performance of Java with a highly expressive language e.g. Scala
- jfaucett 14y agoyes, but if you noticed I'm comparing Java to C in terms of program language speed. I'm comparing Java to Ruby in development speed NOT language speed, I thought this was obvious... sorry, If I wasn't clear enough above.
- rabbitfang 14y agoYou were clear, but if you're going to compare languages you can't cherry pick which features to compare. You compared Java to C performance and then Java to Ruby in terms of expressiveness. Since Ruby does not have the performance of C and C does not have the expressiveness of Ruby it's not really a fair comparison to Java.