ixid, el 30 de March a las 20:04 me escribiste: > On Sunday, 30 March 2014 at 19:28:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > >On 3/30/2014 10:08 AM, Kagamin wrote: > >>On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 21:16:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: > >>>It could be useful for me just this past week in a throw-away > >>>D program that I > >>>wrote (at work! :) ) to parse some C and C++ files very > >>>crudely. > >> > >>As I understand, a preprocessor works on macros only, the rest > >>is lexed minimally. > > > >Yes, it won't help much with the rest. > > Were those ycombinator performance figures putting warp someway > behind clang valid? Perhaps we should unleash a community effort to > match clang?
I think that's pretty wasteful, why won't you just use clang? What's the point of competing with another opensource project (a very good one, that took a lot of men-hour to do a good C/C++ compiler, including the preprocessor). I understand Walter did this in a couple of weeks, clang have been developed for at least 7 years now, is totally understandable that clang outperforms warp, is enough merit for warp to outperform GCC. I mean, if someone wants to have fun, go ahead, but putting community effort on that where there are so many places that are more important to put the effort on seems a bit silly. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Debemos creer en los sueños del niño. Cuando el niño sueña con tetas, se toca. -- Ricardo Vaporeso. Toulouse, 1915.
