7 ms·

The point my original post makes is that .NET having concurrent GC is not exactly groundbreaking. This doesn't have anything to do with the so-called expressive

The point my original post makes is that .NET having concurrent GC is not exactly groundbreaking. This doesn't have anything to do with the so-called expressiveness of C# relative to Ruby. >The bytecode language is not standardized, and there is no standard assembler language for it There is a formal spec here: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se7/jvms7.pdf http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se7/jvms7.pdf > New features to the JVM are only added when they are required for Java. This is another false assumption: http://blog.headius.com/2008/09/first-taste-of-invokedynamic.html http://blog.headius.com/2008/09/first-taste-of-invokedynamic... >I say it does rival [the expressiveness of] ruby, you say it doesn't, good discussion. Not really, is more like a generally accepted fact. e.g. Ruby typically uses 2-3x less code than C# to do the same thing: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=yarv http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al...

yread 14y ago
> There is a formal spec Not really the same thing as an ECMA standard http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecm... > Ruby typically uses 2-3x less code than C# Perhaps you wanted to use a different link? This one says that it is ~10 times slower?
- tinco 14y ago
  Everyone knows that ruby is ~10 times slower than anything else the question is how the expressiveness compares. Of course the amount is code is going to be greater because you are more explicit about types. I program in ruby for a living and do some C# as a hobby so I know the differences..
- thebluesky 14y ago
  > Perhaps you wanted to use a different link? This one says that it [ruby] is ~10 times slower [than C#]? The link is correct. See the "code" section where Ruby has 2-3x less code. I won't disagree about Ruby being much slower than C# and Java. Ruby slow[er]ness has to do with it being dynamically typed, which also makes it expressive. If you are after something which is more expressive than C# and faster than C# see Scala on the JVM: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=scala http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al...

yread 14y ago

> There is a formal spec Not really the same thing as an ECMA standard http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecm... > Ruby typically uses 2-3x less code than C# Perhaps you wanted to use a different link? This one says that it is ~10 times slower?

tinco 14y ago
Everyone knows that ruby is ~10 times slower than anything else the question is how the expressiveness compares. Of course the amount is code is going to be greater because you are more explicit about types. I program in ruby for a living and do some C# as a hobby so I know the differences..
thebluesky 14y ago
> Perhaps you wanted to use a different link? This one says that it [ruby] is ~10 times slower [than C#]? The link is correct. See the "code" section where Ruby has 2-3x less code. I won't disagree about Ruby being much slower than C# and Java. Ruby slow[er]ness has to do with it being dynamically typed, which also makes it expressive. If you are after something which is more expressive than C# and faster than C# see Scala on the JVM: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=scala http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al...