On 04.12.2015 21:30, Alex wrote:
Yes, I missed this, sorry. The main part of the question was probably about the class and struct difference. I thought handling with structs and pointers would be faster then with classes.
When you use a struct directly, without going through a pointer, that can be significantly faster than using a class. But structs through pointers are pretty much the same as classes, performance-wise.
[...]
Why the parallel version is slower then the sequential? If you set int n = 14 in the main function the parallel version is MUCH slower then the sequential. At my machine 7x slower. Shouldn't it be the other way round?
I don't know what's going on here. You're allocating a lot of `TreeNode`s, though. That's probably not very parallelizable. The GC could also play a role.
[...]
As ldc doesn't have the experimental part of the includes, compared on the first version. The result was: program compiled with ldc2, same params, was 5% slower... nothing crucial, I think...
"The experimental part" is std.experimental.allocator, right? I may be wrong here, but I think the default allocator is essentially just `new`. So that wouldn't give you any performance boost.
[...]
Yeah... so the answer here for me, is that I can stay with my way of thinking in c# style. :)
In this case, I think you're fine. Generally, be aware that D doesn't shine when you create lots of throw-away objects. The GC can't compete with those of C# or Java, so when you translate code from those languages too closely, performance may be worse.
