Jason House wrote:
I don't think it's proper to limit solutions to either Phobos or Tango, or
either D1 or D2. Why not include all mixes of standard libraries, compilers,
and major D versions?
I've always heard Tango is faster... Let's see proof!
Similarly, D2 aims to do multithreading better. I'd love to see performance and
code differences between D1 and D2.
These benchmarks are designed purely to test the compilers, not the
libraries. I agree that it might be interesting to see benchmarks
between tango and phobos, I might set some up at some point. I know
there are already some benchmarks up for XML performance of
tango/phobos/other xml libraries at http://dotnot.org/, as well as some
tests showing performance of the GC at
http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/GCBenchmark. Neither of these
are up to date or test the full extent of the libraries, but do show
some difference in performance. As I stated in my post I chose tango
purely because ldc does not currently support phobos. The choice of
library should not affect performance as all benchmarks use stdc for any
external functions.
I will not be setting up benchmarks for D2 yet, as there is currently
only one D2 compiler and it is in alpha. When there are multiple D2
compilers, I will set up some more benchmarks for them. Similarly when
D2 moves out of alpha I will happily put it against D1 if there is demand.
