<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Simple programming language performance benchmark(C# vs. Java vs. C++ vs. Ruby)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.whiletrue.com/2006/05/simple-programming-language-performance-benchmarkc-vs-java-vs-c-vs-ruby/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.whiletrue.com/2006/05/simple-programming-language-performance-benchmarkc-vs-java-vs-c-vs-ruby/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:48:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Simon B.</title>
		<link>http://blog.whiletrue.com/2006/05/simple-programming-language-performance-benchmarkc-vs-java-vs-c-vs-ruby/comment-page-1/#comment-352</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon B.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 03:56:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.whiletrue.com/?p=6#comment-352</guid>
		<description>Why not make two bechmarks, one for compiled languages and one for interpreted ones?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why not make two bechmarks, one for compiled languages and one for interpreted ones?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
