> I suspect that parent was referring to the python 2.x branch, which has been catching up with ruby 1.9, but on most benchmarks started at ~ 3x slower and are now ~ 2x slower.
Citation needed again. Ruby 1.9 is slower than Python 3, and Python 3 is slower or as fast as Python 2 on Python official benchmarks.
> Since benchmarks are completely worthless, let's just stop this pissing match right now.
Benchmarks are far from worthless. And pissing match? Asking for citations amounts to pissing match? The parent claimed something that isn't true(ruby 1.9 significantly faster than CPython - that has never been the case). And you are adding python 2.x was slower than 1.9, when 2.x is generally faster than 3.
I love ruby as much as the next guy. But when it comes to execution speed, ruby has always been the slowest among ruby, python, and perl.
The original author, on a basis of a fib benchmark, concludes ruby 1.9 is faster - that is as flawed as it gets.
Did you try running with Python 3? You will get around the same time as you get with Python 2.7. Pick anything from here http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al... and run it with Python 2.7 and ruby 1.9. The programs which are faster with Python 3 will be mostly faster with Python 2.7. 2.7 isn't slower than ruby 1.9; it is faster in most of the cases.
Regarding the fib example, when the original was doing the rounds, I didn't find any explanations from python or ruby implementors. I can't say why, but most likely python has a higher overhead with growing call stacks, and ruby does some optimizations.
Data is not dishonest and benchmarks are not dishonest. What is dishonest is this tendency to cherry-pick only the case which is convenient to you, as you have done here. If you want to talk about Ruby performance vs. Python then you will have to dig into something like the site linked previously, which has many different benchmarks run on a uniform testbed rather than a single cherry-picked case run in whatever way you felt like.
Citation needed again. Ruby 1.9 is slower than Python 3, and Python 3 is slower or as fast as Python 2 on Python official benchmarks.
http://docs.python.org/release/3.0.1/whatsnew/3.0.html#perfo...
> Since benchmarks are completely worthless, let's just stop this pissing match right now.
Benchmarks are far from worthless. And pissing match? Asking for citations amounts to pissing match? The parent claimed something that isn't true(ruby 1.9 significantly faster than CPython - that has never been the case). And you are adding python 2.x was slower than 1.9, when 2.x is generally faster than 3.
I love ruby as much as the next guy. But when it comes to execution speed, ruby has always been the slowest among ruby, python, and perl.