If someone's going to invest $2,580 for a nexus one (or $3780 for an iPhone) chance are they're going to know a decent amount
I wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption.
The vast majority of car purchases in the US are classified as "impulse purchases". Ya I know, shocking the stupidity. If a common $20,000 - $50,000+ purchase, at roughly the same interval, can be based on an uneducated, impulse to purchase, what makes you so sure that a $2,000 - $4,000 purchase, payed out over two years, is going to be any different. In fact, I'd argue its vastly, vastly more likely these phone purchases are impulse behaviors rather than well researched actions.
I strongly suspect you're thinking like a geek (imagine finding you here) and not the average consumer.
How about the Phoenix Missile which most recently had a unit cost of $477,131. When it was first introduced, its unit cost was ~$1,000,000 per and that was in 1974 dollars. It was quite the technological marvel when first introduced. The missile is no longer manufactured.
Its a joke with a morale. Seemingly, you failed to laugh or learn the lesson; from which there is no escape. Much of what companies pay for in outside expertise is non-tangle skills or even validation of what they already know. Its all in the know-how or even the authority of the know-how.
The applicable examples are everywhere if you only look. Next time you visit your General Practitioner, make sure you tell him to remove his head from his ass before he sees you. More than likely you're paying him to validate what you already know and to simply provide indirect access to his Rx pad. In this example, you're paying a large office visit bill (directly or indirectly) for the simple ability to obtain a piece of paper with a couple of scribbles on it so you can then take it to another professional who will simply hand you a bottle. In both places of this knowledge-fest, you're paying a premium for that "know-how".
Given your rebut, none exist who have their heads shoved farther up their ass then your GP and pharmacist.
Well to be fair to Eugene Stoner, the infamous M16 jams turned out to be a problem with the ammo being too hot
That's exactly my point. The weapon+ammo issued was not what Eugene tested nor was it what had previously been placed into the field. Nor was the weapon what the various armed services stated they required prior to full scale deployment.
In addition to the ammo being too hot, it was also far, far too dirty; creating the most significant factor (combined with the heat) to weapon jamming. Had components been chromed, despite the untested ammo, it would have likely would have still resulted in an operational weapon.
And contrary to how it was issued, the weapon was intended to be issued with a companion cleaning kit. And the weapon was to have some components chromed (per Eugene) and a forward assist was required by the armed services. In stead, the know it alls running the war decided that they'd issue the weapon with known to be incorrect and untested ammunition, they failed to provide a forward assist, did not provide a clean kit, and no chrome was added.
Hope this joke puts things into perspective for you.
A factory has a major problem that closed their manufacturing line. A consultant is brought in. The Consultant wanders around the factory floor, listening, poking. Finally, he takes out a small hammer and taps gently a few times on one particular piece of machinery. The factory line roars back to life, production once again in progress. The factory managers are ecstatic.
A week later, the factory recieves the invoice from The Consultant. The price was $900 for less than one hour of work. The factory's business people fumed and asked The Consultant for an explanation. The Consultant offered to send in an itemized invoice. The business people said, "yes, please do."
A second invoice arrived. It had two line items. Item 1 was, "Rectifying Problem with Hammer Hit....$1" Item 2 was, "Knowing Where to Hit the Hammer....$899"
Now stating facts constitutes, "comparison based on bias, handwaving, and smokescreens." Holy shit are you stupid.
The sad fact is, which was plainly obvious from your initial post, you're incredibly ignorant and closed minded of the world around you. Go bother to learn some more about anything before you post further. Seriously. Hell, almost everything I stated has been covered multiple times on slashdot alone over the last many years.
Are you even aware car companies have recently gone out of business? You might bother to pull your head from your ass and learn why that happened...hint...hint... SUVs and other gas guzzlers played a significant role. The fact that anything I said is readily excused as "biased hand-waving" rather than, "okay maybe, certainly makes sense", speaks very loudly that you're an absolute fucking idiot with you head buried so far up your ass its unlikely anyone will be able to extract it. Especially when its obvious from reading several of the replies from other people they all agree with me. And based on the information provided by some, it too is obvious they know what the hell they are talking about, like me; and completely unlike you.
what happens when you let the MBAs and the bean counters run the place.
Those who forget this lesson, time and time again are forced to relive America's entry into Vietnam. Vietnam is what happens when MBAs and bean counters are empowered to actually run things. In short, its disastrous for everyone involved. They focus on body count and raw hours rather than noteworthy results. Even worse, for absolutely no reason, they believe they know more about a product, task, trade, or skill than the manufacturers and/or tradesmen; just ask Stoner of AmaLite and the notorious M-16 jams or the any number of thousands of dead US military.
MBAs and accountants only have value when kept in dark rooms with electric shock collars. Any other allowances is likely to lead to results ranging from loss of weekends and vacation, loss of jobs, or people actually dying.
want a droid, but for some reason no networks in the UK are interested in selling them. I've got no idea why this is.
In the UK, they use GSM, not CDMA. The Droid is strictly a CDMA phone. The GSM variant of Droid is called the Motorola Milestone. The Milestone has been available in the UK since December 7th.
And comparing an auto from the edge of the bell curve is useful how
When a vehicle represents the majority of vehicles on the road in regards to fuel economy, its far, far from being at the edge. Furthermore, you failed to read the 2-3 times the speed. Which means, at the same speeds, you get drastically better economy. As for "a fraction of the capacity and and capability", is actually very funny as the VAST majority of SUVs carry a single occupant, never leave paved roads, never tow anything, and never come close to filling their cargo capacity. Meaning they are themselves the posterboy at the edge of the bell curve which use a faction of capacity and capability. Irony of irony; and yet that's the US' mainstream transportation.
Since you seemed to have missed the last two plus decades, SUVs have become a status symbol - nothing more. Capacity and capability only rarely ever enter the equation for whopping fewer than 20% of all SUV owners.
Which bring us full circle, if you can create a vehicle which travels at 2x the speed and a faction of relative fuel consumption, with pragmatic cargo carrying capacity (in excess of what SUV owners actually carry - which is little to nothing), only an idiot can't see which is the obviously superior choice.
Its also worth noting, I specifically picked SUVs as that drastically widened the net for airplanes which qualify. Having said that, its still not that hard to find aircraft which travel at 2x+ the speed of a typical SUV on open highways and still get 2x-3x better economy. Read some of the other replies and you'll even find some links to existing small aircraft.
Many small aircraft get as good, if not better, than many SUVs and at 2-3 times the speed while carrying one to four people and a small amount of luggage.
The only hard part of the requirements is that it be a VTOL aircraft which will significantly affect the design, performance, and practicality. If they changed their requirements from VTOL to STOL of less than 1000 feet, the designs are likely to offer vastly superior capabilities.
If by number crunching you mean everything except the UI and maybe audio (have not looked), but including OpenGL, then you are correct. The only thing you can't do with the NDK on Android is the user interface stuff. Everything else is readily available via the NDK.
The only real complaint about the NDK is Google removed all support for exceptions from C++.
You have some reading skill issues. Re-read what I said. Then comprehend it. Its very clear based on what you wrote, you failed to comprehend what I wrote.
The moderators who rated you accordingly, as usual failed to do their job. Notice below there are others who clearly state I didn't say such ignorant things as you ignorantly put forward. As such, it proves some are capable of reading without putting their own basis into my mouth.
Err, yes...sorry...too many version numbers being tossed around.
Even so, JRuby -- which supports essentially all of Ruby 1.8 except Continuations, and has a 1.9 mode that is close on the heels of the mainline Ruby 1.9 -- is a more current Ruby than Jython is for Python.
I concede that now.
I'm not really sure that's all that true
Something I wish I had previously offered is, much of the modern Python web frameworks got much of their inspiration and direction directly from Rails; no bones about it. As a result, many of those same projects worked to implement a wanna-be rails equivalent.These first generation wanna-be frameworks fell short on many fronts. Regardless, various framework projects followed and all seemingly suffered the same issues as Rails, without all of the advantages. Which is to say, they all scaled horribly.
As a result, second generation frameworks for python came about hoping to resolve these issues. Many still have scalability issues but did a good job of closing the gap with many of Rail's many advantages; yet still lacked in the ORM department. As a result, a third generation of frameworks, which now fully embrace SQLAlchemy, exist which largely address both scalability issues and ActiveRecord advantages. As a result, projects like the current TurboGears go a long was toward addressing past deficiencies of past generational frameworks and neutering Rails' advantages; including ActiveRecord. In short, I believe it is fair to say parity exists and that SQLAlchemy likely even provides a superior ORM than ActiveRecord.
Sure, as you point out Rails isn't exactly standing still, just the same I don't have a problem offering Python has reached web framework parity with Rails. At this point, if each once to keep leap frogging each other, I can only smile.
I didn't know Ruby had an interactive shell. Thanks.
In case you're curious, if a script is not provided to python it goes into an interactive mode, allowing for much the same thing. And if you want such python interaction on steriods, you can always checkout ipython, which is actually a complete command line shell replacement (as in replacement for bash, ksh, cmd, etc), in addition to its interactive python capabilities.
With defacto reference implementations whereby when someone mentions that language they specifically mean the reference implementation. I guess since Ruby is coming from such a performance deficit that general rule is thrown out the window; but that's news to the world. Made yet odder is the fact you specifically compared JRuby to CPython to claim superiority. Again, something is amiss. But then again, I previously explained all this.
Jython is one of the slower Python implementation
I decided to look based on your insistence. It does appear I may have had smoke blown at me many a time about Jython's performance; but most of the benchmarks I found were fairly old (a year or more). I did find mention that Sun was actively working to bolster Jython's performance from again, over a year ago. Regardless, I'll back off my assertion here as I couldn't find anything to bolster my position. It appears you're right.
But, I did find something which is very contrary to your other assertions and my own expectations. In the benchmarks I found, cpython was generally a lot faster than ruby 1.9 in 60% of the benchmarks. Based on comments, that shouldn't come as a surprise, but the smaller gap compared to previously ruby versions is still noteworthy. In 30% of the benchmarks, ruby 1.9 was on par with cpython. And in only 10% of the benchmarks was ruby 1.9 faster than cpython. In short, while cpython was faster than ruby 1.9, it looks like its performance, like python, is good enough for all but those who have an axe to grind.
But more interestingly, it appears JRuby is actually a very mixed bag. In the benchmarks, cpython was a lot faster (33%-89%) than jruby in 36% of the benchmarks. Furthermore, cpython was as fast as jruby in a different 36%. Meaning, 73% of the benchmarks place cpython on par or better than jruby. In only 27% of the benchmarks was jruby faster than cpython, and in those benchmarks, jruby was considerably faster; 2x-3x than that of cpython.
To summarize cpython vs jruby, cpython is faster based on the sum of the benchmarks; cpython's 73% vs jruby's 63%, whereby the percent represents the percent of benchmarks which are faster or on par with the other. In other words, based on these benchmarks, ranked by performance you have cpython, jruby, and ruby 1.9, which isn't exactly as you've advertised and is even a surprising departure from my own expectations. It appears from a performance perspective, cpython vs rjuby performance is highly subjective based on the actual project and likely, its not accurate to claim jruby is faster than cpython.
Disappointingly, they do not provide benchmarks for jython or psyco.
As for psyco and my own experience, for two of my own projects (heavy network servers with cached and lightly accessed db backend via sqlalchemy), psyco resulted in a performance boost of 1.6 and 2.1 over that of stock cpython (version 2.5.something at the time. I forget exact version). Granted, the performance boost psyco provides is significantly affected by the project implementation. Having said that, with the addition of psyco to a python project, it would not be much of a stretch to anticipate cpython+psyco to be considerably faster than jruby, on average.
At the end of the day, I really did not desire to go down the performance comparison path, but I'm actually glad I did as I find these results rather surprising and interesting.
The fact you refuse to answer any of the questions offered in rebuttal, are easily confused by the words, "clearly", and, "elegant", and readily resort to projection and attacking can only be interpreted as biased fanaticism without nothing to contribute whatsoever, followed by accusations of trolling. The word, "clearly", is completely obvious to anyone with a smidgen of IQ. Made worse, your entire straw man argument hinges on a useless example whereby its entirely best to replace it with a static page; despite the fact many other factors (templates, ORM) where specifically mentioned as being significant.
Either way, I'm not wasting my time on you. Good day.
The sad thing is, YOU'VE wasted everyone's time and then go on to troll about how your trollish time was wasted. Nicely played but incredibly transparent; as is your entire, irrational and fanatic rant.
Next time you decide to not "waste your time", can you please do that BEFORE you've wasted everyone else's? Pot, kettle, you....holy shit.
In fact, the Cessna SkyCrasher isn't an FAA Certified aircraft at all. It's a light sport aircraft, and as such, doesn't need to be certified by the FAA. I
You did catch me making a snafu there. As a light sport, you're right that its not technically "certified". It is, however, declared to be in compliance with ASTM, of which the FAA does verify. My understanding the FAA does tersely verify with manufacturer at least some intent of compliance - unofficially. In that vein, the SkyCatcher isn't really the best example to hold high as I did. Accordingly you are right to rebuke me on it.
Just the same, the point remains, aviation is well over twice as expensive as it needs to be because of liability issues.
You bit the wrong place and for entirely the wrong reasons. Its all about the math. For one good American coder you can higher three to five shitty Indian coders. In the mind of a CEO that means he can gut his coders and hire an army of shitty coders while banking on the chance that in an army of shitty coders perhaps one or two may actually be worth their third world rate. This in turn provides leverage to reduce wages of American coders.
Then, at some later time, the CEO is able to claim he's saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions for the company in labor which then allows him to get both a salary increase and/or additional perks and benefits.
Regardless of what your personal take on this is, this is the general approach and the reasons they do so.
To make this all work, they further scam the system by putting out reqs for American programmers who must have every skill in every language and usually require more experience longer than the given technology exists. And in exchange for the programmer who doesn't not exist anywhere, they'll pay them just below fair market rate; which they have been driving down by illegal H1B hires. They then claim they are unable to fill the unobtainable position and therefore are justified in continuing their H1B hiring practice.
In short, what I detail is the way the majority of large companies operate. If you want to put your head in the sad to feel better and rampant illegal and abusive practices which is directly driving salaries down, unemployment up, and fewer grads to follow, by all means, remain ignorant.
we suffer a higher death and injury rate as a direct result.
I wanted to clarify something here. That was meant to be taken in relative terms rather than an absolute. In absolute terms the death and injury rate is actually pretty low; with the most dangerous segment being on par with motorcycles. In relative terms to what it could be, its far higher than what is otherwise technically obtainable.
That way, in case you run into such questions in the future, you'll have what appears to be a legitimate answer rather than the clearly bullshit and incendiary reply you gave me. Also notice the difference in tone and quality of exchange. Please note the difference between your bullshit and a meaningful effort to effectively communicate.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone's going to invest $2,580 for a nexus one (or $3780 for an iPhone) chance are they're going to know a decent amount
I wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption.
The vast majority of car purchases in the US are classified as "impulse purchases". Ya I know, shocking the stupidity. If a common $20,000 - $50,000+ purchase, at roughly the same interval, can be based on an uneducated, impulse to purchase, what makes you so sure that a $2,000 - $4,000 purchase, payed out over two years, is going to be any different. In fact, I'd argue its vastly, vastly more likely these phone purchases are impulse behaviors rather than well researched actions.
I strongly suspect you're thinking like a geek (imagine finding you here) and not the average consumer.
How about the Phoenix Missile which most recently had a unit cost of $477,131. When it was first introduced, its unit cost was ~$1,000,000 per and that was in 1974 dollars. It was quite the technological marvel when first introduced. The missile is no longer manufactured.
Its a joke with a morale. Seemingly, you failed to laugh or learn the lesson; from which there is no escape. Much of what companies pay for in outside expertise is non-tangle skills or even validation of what they already know. Its all in the know-how or even the authority of the know-how.
The applicable examples are everywhere if you only look. Next time you visit your General Practitioner, make sure you tell him to remove his head from his ass before he sees you. More than likely you're paying him to validate what you already know and to simply provide indirect access to his Rx pad. In this example, you're paying a large office visit bill (directly or indirectly) for the simple ability to obtain a piece of paper with a couple of scribbles on it so you can then take it to another professional who will simply hand you a bottle. In both places of this knowledge-fest, you're paying a premium for that "know-how".
Given your rebut, none exist who have their heads shoved farther up their ass then your GP and pharmacist.
Well to be fair to Eugene Stoner, the infamous M16 jams turned out to be a problem with the ammo being too hot
That's exactly my point. The weapon+ammo issued was not what Eugene tested nor was it what had previously been placed into the field. Nor was the weapon what the various armed services stated they required prior to full scale deployment.
In addition to the ammo being too hot, it was also far, far too dirty; creating the most significant factor (combined with the heat) to weapon jamming. Had components been chromed, despite the untested ammo, it would have likely would have still resulted in an operational weapon.
And contrary to how it was issued, the weapon was intended to be issued with a companion cleaning kit. And the weapon was to have some components chromed (per Eugene) and a forward assist was required by the armed services. In stead, the know it alls running the war decided that they'd issue the weapon with known to be incorrect and untested ammunition, they failed to provide a forward assist, did not provide a clean kit, and no chrome was added.
Hope this joke puts things into perspective for you.
A factory has a major problem that closed their manufacturing line. A consultant is brought in. The Consultant wanders around the factory floor, listening, poking. Finally, he takes out a small hammer and taps gently a few times on one particular piece of machinery. The factory line roars back to life, production once again in progress. The factory managers are ecstatic.
A week later, the factory recieves the invoice from The Consultant. The price was $900 for less than one hour of work. The factory's business people fumed and asked The Consultant for an explanation. The Consultant offered to send in an itemized invoice. The business people said, "yes, please do."
A second invoice arrived. It had two line items. Item 1 was, "Rectifying Problem with Hammer Hit....$1" Item 2 was, "Knowing Where to Hit the Hammer....$899"
Now stating facts constitutes, "comparison based on bias, handwaving, and smokescreens." Holy shit are you stupid.
The sad fact is, which was plainly obvious from your initial post, you're incredibly ignorant and closed minded of the world around you. Go bother to learn some more about anything before you post further. Seriously. Hell, almost everything I stated has been covered multiple times on slashdot alone over the last many years.
Are you even aware car companies have recently gone out of business? You might bother to pull your head from your ass and learn why that happened...hint...hint... SUVs and other gas guzzlers played a significant role. The fact that anything I said is readily excused as "biased hand-waving" rather than, "okay maybe, certainly makes sense", speaks very loudly that you're an absolute fucking idiot with you head buried so far up your ass its unlikely anyone will be able to extract it. Especially when its obvious from reading several of the replies from other people they all agree with me. And based on the information provided by some, it too is obvious they know what the hell they are talking about, like me; and completely unlike you.
Hmm...I bet your breath smells like shit too.
Moron.
what happens when you let the MBAs and the bean counters run the place.
Those who forget this lesson, time and time again are forced to relive America's entry into Vietnam. Vietnam is what happens when MBAs and bean counters are empowered to actually run things. In short, its disastrous for everyone involved. They focus on body count and raw hours rather than noteworthy results. Even worse, for absolutely no reason, they believe they know more about a product, task, trade, or skill than the manufacturers and/or tradesmen; just ask Stoner of AmaLite and the notorious M-16 jams or the any number of thousands of dead US military.
MBAs and accountants only have value when kept in dark rooms with electric shock collars. Any other allowances is likely to lead to results ranging from loss of weekends and vacation, loss of jobs, or people actually dying.
The iPhone 3Gs was just released in June.
want a droid, but for some reason no networks in the UK are interested in selling them. I've got no idea why this is.
In the UK, they use GSM, not CDMA. The Droid is strictly a CDMA phone. The GSM variant of Droid is called the Motorola Milestone. The Milestone has been available in the UK since December 7th.
And comparing an auto from the edge of the bell curve is useful how
When a vehicle represents the majority of vehicles on the road in regards to fuel economy, its far, far from being at the edge. Furthermore, you failed to read the 2-3 times the speed. Which means, at the same speeds, you get drastically better economy. As for "a fraction of the capacity and and capability", is actually very funny as the VAST majority of SUVs carry a single occupant, never leave paved roads, never tow anything, and never come close to filling their cargo capacity. Meaning they are themselves the posterboy at the edge of the bell curve which use a faction of capacity and capability. Irony of irony; and yet that's the US' mainstream transportation.
Since you seemed to have missed the last two plus decades, SUVs have become a status symbol - nothing more. Capacity and capability only rarely ever enter the equation for whopping fewer than 20% of all SUV owners.
Which bring us full circle, if you can create a vehicle which travels at 2x the speed and a faction of relative fuel consumption, with pragmatic cargo carrying capacity (in excess of what SUV owners actually carry - which is little to nothing), only an idiot can't see which is the obviously superior choice.
Its also worth noting, I specifically picked SUVs as that drastically widened the net for airplanes which qualify. Having said that, its still not that hard to find aircraft which travel at 2x+ the speed of a typical SUV on open highways and still get 2x-3x better economy. Read some of the other replies and you'll even find some links to existing small aircraft.
Many small aircraft get as good, if not better, than many SUVs and at 2-3 times the speed while carrying one to four people and a small amount of luggage.
The only hard part of the requirements is that it be a VTOL aircraft which will significantly affect the design, performance, and practicality. If they changed their requirements from VTOL to STOL of less than 1000 feet, the designs are likely to offer vastly superior capabilities.
NDK can only be used for number crunching.
If by number crunching you mean everything except the UI and maybe audio (have not looked), but including OpenGL, then you are correct. The only thing you can't do with the NDK on Android is the user interface stuff. Everything else is readily available via the NDK.
The only real complaint about the NDK is Google removed all support for exceptions from C++.
No. If Congress were to ratify a treaty that violated the Constitution, SCOTUS could toss it like any other unconstitutional law.
Pretty hard to do since the Constitution requires honoring treaties such that it becomes law of the land.
You have some reading skill issues. Re-read what I said. Then comprehend it. Its very clear based on what you wrote, you failed to comprehend what I wrote.
The moderators who rated you accordingly, as usual failed to do their job. Notice below there are others who clearly state I didn't say such ignorant things as you ignorantly put forward. As such, it proves some are capable of reading without putting their own basis into my mouth.
That was actually to Lord Ender - didn't pay attention to whom I was replying.
And summarization to make a clear point is far from rambling. Seems rudeness goes hand and hand with most Ruby guys. Wow.
Why so many of the terrorists have engineering degrees
Why do so taxi drivers have a medical degree in their own country? Not all pieces of paper are created equal.
You mean 2.5/2.6, instead of 1.5/1.6, right?
Err, yes...sorry...too many version numbers being tossed around.
Even so, JRuby -- which supports essentially all of Ruby 1.8 except Continuations, and has a 1.9 mode that is close on the heels of the mainline Ruby 1.9 -- is a more current Ruby than Jython is for Python.
I concede that now.
I'm not really sure that's all that true
Something I wish I had previously offered is, much of the modern Python web frameworks got much of their inspiration and direction directly from Rails; no bones about it. As a result, many of those same projects worked to implement a wanna-be rails equivalent.These first generation wanna-be frameworks fell short on many fronts. Regardless, various framework projects followed and all seemingly suffered the same issues as Rails, without all of the advantages. Which is to say, they all scaled horribly.
As a result, second generation frameworks for python came about hoping to resolve these issues. Many still have scalability issues but did a good job of closing the gap with many of Rail's many advantages; yet still lacked in the ORM department. As a result, a third generation of frameworks, which now fully embrace SQLAlchemy, exist which largely address both scalability issues and ActiveRecord advantages. As a result, projects like the current TurboGears go a long was toward addressing past deficiencies of past generational frameworks and neutering Rails' advantages; including ActiveRecord. In short, I believe it is fair to say parity exists and that SQLAlchemy likely even provides a superior ORM than ActiveRecord.
Sure, as you point out Rails isn't exactly standing still, just the same I don't have a problem offering Python has reached web framework parity with Rails. At this point, if each once to keep leap frogging each other, I can only smile.
I didn't know Ruby had an interactive shell. Thanks.
In case you're curious, if a script is not provided to python it goes into an interactive mode, allowing for much the same thing. And if you want such python interaction on steriods, you can always checkout ipython, which is actually a complete command line shell replacement (as in replacement for bash, ksh, cmd, etc), in addition to its interactive python capabilities.
Ruby and Python are languages.
With defacto reference implementations whereby when someone mentions that language they specifically mean the reference implementation. I guess since Ruby is coming from such a performance deficit that general rule is thrown out the window; but that's news to the world. Made yet odder is the fact you specifically compared JRuby to CPython to claim superiority. Again, something is amiss. But then again, I previously explained all this.
Jython is one of the slower Python implementation
I decided to look based on your insistence. It does appear I may have had smoke blown at me many a time about Jython's performance; but most of the benchmarks I found were fairly old (a year or more). I did find mention that Sun was actively working to bolster Jython's performance from again, over a year ago. Regardless, I'll back off my assertion here as I couldn't find anything to bolster my position. It appears you're right.
But, I did find something which is very contrary to your other assertions and my own expectations. In the benchmarks I found, cpython was generally a lot faster than ruby 1.9 in 60% of the benchmarks. Based on comments, that shouldn't come as a surprise, but the smaller gap compared to previously ruby versions is still noteworthy. In 30% of the benchmarks, ruby 1.9 was on par with cpython. And in only 10% of the benchmarks was ruby 1.9 faster than cpython. In short, while cpython was faster than ruby 1.9, it looks like its performance, like python, is good enough for all but those who have an axe to grind.
But more interestingly, it appears JRuby is actually a very mixed bag. In the benchmarks, cpython was a lot faster (33%-89%) than jruby in 36% of the benchmarks. Furthermore, cpython was as fast as jruby in a different 36%. Meaning, 73% of the benchmarks place cpython on par or better than jruby. In only 27% of the benchmarks was jruby faster than cpython, and in those benchmarks, jruby was considerably faster; 2x-3x than that of cpython.
To summarize cpython vs jruby, cpython is faster based on the sum of the benchmarks; cpython's 73% vs jruby's 63%, whereby the percent represents the percent of benchmarks which are faster or on par with the other. In other words, based on these benchmarks, ranked by performance you have cpython, jruby, and ruby 1.9, which isn't exactly as you've advertised and is even a surprising departure from my own expectations. It appears from a performance perspective, cpython vs rjuby performance is highly subjective based on the actual project and likely, its not accurate to claim jruby is faster than cpython.
Disappointingly, they do not provide benchmarks for jython or psyco.
As for psyco and my own experience, for two of my own projects (heavy network servers with cached and lightly accessed db backend via sqlalchemy), psyco resulted in a performance boost of 1.6 and 2.1 over that of stock cpython (version 2.5.something at the time. I forget exact version). Granted, the performance boost psyco provides is significantly affected by the project implementation. Having said that, with the addition of psyco to a python project, it would not be much of a stretch to anticipate cpython+psyco to be considerably faster than jruby, on average.
At the end of the day, I really did not desire to go down the performance comparison path, but I'm actually glad I did as I find these results rather surprising and interesting.
Cited benchmarks
The fact you refuse to answer any of the questions offered in rebuttal, are easily confused by the words, "clearly", and, "elegant", and readily resort to projection and attacking can only be interpreted as biased fanaticism without nothing to contribute whatsoever, followed by accusations of trolling. The word, "clearly", is completely obvious to anyone with a smidgen of IQ. Made worse, your entire straw man argument hinges on a useless example whereby its entirely best to replace it with a static page; despite the fact many other factors (templates, ORM) where specifically mentioned as being significant.
Either way, I'm not wasting my time on you. Good day.
The sad thing is, YOU'VE wasted everyone's time and then go on to troll about how your trollish time was wasted. Nicely played but incredibly transparent; as is your entire, irrational and fanatic rant.
Next time you decide to not "waste your time", can you please do that BEFORE you've wasted everyone else's? Pot, kettle, you....holy shit.
In fact, the Cessna SkyCrasher isn't an FAA Certified aircraft at all. It's a light sport aircraft, and as such, doesn't need to be certified by the FAA. I
You did catch me making a snafu there. As a light sport, you're right that its not technically "certified". It is, however, declared to be in compliance with ASTM, of which the FAA does verify. My understanding the FAA does tersely verify with manufacturer at least some intent of compliance - unofficially. In that vein, the SkyCatcher isn't really the best example to hold high as I did. Accordingly you are right to rebuke me on it.
Just the same, the point remains, aviation is well over twice as expensive as it needs to be because of liability issues.
Its a well documented fact that liability in aviation consumes .50 on every aviation dollar.
Stop putting your head up your ass.
I'll bite.
You bit the wrong place and for entirely the wrong reasons. Its all about the math. For one good American coder you can higher three to five shitty Indian coders. In the mind of a CEO that means he can gut his coders and hire an army of shitty coders while banking on the chance that in an army of shitty coders perhaps one or two may actually be worth their third world rate. This in turn provides leverage to reduce wages of American coders.
Then, at some later time, the CEO is able to claim he's saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions for the company in labor which then allows him to get both a salary increase and/or additional perks and benefits.
Regardless of what your personal take on this is, this is the general approach and the reasons they do so.
To make this all work, they further scam the system by putting out reqs for American programmers who must have every skill in every language and usually require more experience longer than the given technology exists. And in exchange for the programmer who doesn't not exist anywhere, they'll pay them just below fair market rate; which they have been driving down by illegal H1B hires. They then claim they are unable to fill the unobtainable position and therefore are justified in continuing their H1B hiring practice.
In short, what I detail is the way the majority of large companies operate. If you want to put your head in the sad to feel better and rampant illegal and abusive practices which is directly driving salaries down, unemployment up, and fewer grads to follow, by all means, remain ignorant.
we suffer a higher death and injury rate as a direct result.
I wanted to clarify something here. That was meant to be taken in relative terms rather than an absolute. In absolute terms the death and injury rate is actually pretty low; with the most dangerous segment being on par with motorcycles. In relative terms to what it could be, its far higher than what is otherwise technically obtainable.
In case you wanted to know what everything points to as the real answer to my questions.
That way, in case you run into such questions in the future, you'll have what appears to be a legitimate answer rather than the clearly bullshit and incendiary reply you gave me. Also notice the difference in tone and quality of exchange. Please note the difference between your bullshit and a meaningful effort to effectively communicate.
Happy Holidays!