Re^3: Perl Vs Ruby

The last benchmark I saw showed a factor 3 difference

Do you really consider a 6,000-times-repeated call of one function, on a 500MHz machine, to be a language benchmark? Please, don't.

Comment on Re^3: Perl Vs Ruby

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Perl Vs Ruby - Benchmark? by LanX (Saint) on Nov 27, 2008 at 09:21 UTC
> Do you really consider ... Nope, but I asked you for a better benchmark...	[reply]
Re^5: Perl Vs Ruby - Benchmark? by ptoulis (Scribe) on Nov 27, 2008 at 13:59 UTC
Language benchmarks are in general irrelevant and stupid. If you insist try this link for some more. Ruby has a dynamic type system, you can add methods to an object on the fly.This makes it slow, but this is also why it has Rails. What's the point of the benchmark again?	[reply]
Re^6: Perl Vs Ruby - Benchmark? by LanX (Saint) on Nov 27, 2008 at 16:29 UTC
Well the point is your making statements without any sources. When other people provide sources and politely ask for yours, your getting strange. May I ask how old you are?	[reply]
Re^7: Perl Vs Ruby - Benchmark? by ptoulis (Scribe) on Nov 27, 2008 at 17:12 UTC
Re^8: Perl Vs Ruby - Benchmark? by LanX (Saint) on Nov 27, 2008 at 17:18 UTC