3 ms·
I don't know what's going on with Ruby's 'fasta' implementation, but I'm pretty sure it's not x86 assumptions that cause Ruby to use 231x the RAM.
by lbrandy 18y ago
I don't know what's going on with Ruby's 'fasta' implementation, but I'm pretty sure it's not x86 assumptions that cause Ruby to use 231x the RAM.
- darkhorse 18y agoit's because the ruby implementation of "fasta" computes the entire result in memory and then prints it out; the lua one prints as it goes. so, i'd take it with a huge slab of salt.
- kingkongrevenge 18y agoI'm sure, but luajit wins handily over all the scripting interpreters. I'm not much concerned with ruby in particular. I'm suspicious that luajit is constrained in features. I doubt you can dynamically load in object code for modules, for example. This makes it not quite a straightforward comparison to the other interpreters.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y agoActually, this is incorrect. LuaJIT is explicitly compatible with the standard Lua ABI for modules. http://luajit.org/luajit_features.html http://luajit.org/luajit_features.html Since it is able to use certain non-ANSI C features on the various platforms it supports it can do other neat things like enable coroutine calls across Lua/C stack boundaries.