Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
>> Ruby will never run
>> faster than Lua, because Lua is somewhat more difficult to program.
>
> I do not understand what you are saying, here.
If you define a "Soft Language" as a "language that puts the needs of the
programmer above the needs of the CPU", then Assembler is the ultimate
Hard
Language, and Ruby is softer than Lua.
For example, each Ruby object has, in memory, a pointer to a class object
and another pointer to a derived instance-class object. That makes
instantiation method lookup slower than under any language with less
metaclass mechanics. It rewards programmers with more ways to flex
objects.
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
|
