On Friday, 7 March 2014 at 08:23:09 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
It was already far above the competition in the throughput
benchmark anyway. What exactly doesn't feel right to you?
On Friday, 7 March 2014 at 05:44:16 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
On Thursday, 6 March 2014 at 17:17:12 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Well, I found out the other day that vibe.d compiles with gdc
now so I went back to see if it made any difference to the
benchmarks I had.
In throughput it made none.
In the latency one it was about 5-10% faster with gdc
compared to dmd, which is good, but it still didn't change
the relative positions of the languages.
So that was anti-climatic. :P
Atila
I'm suspecting that Vibe's performance is heavily based upon
the systems state i.e. hdd. Not so much on the code generation.
I don't know where we can get more performance out of it. But
something doesn't quite feel right.
Mostly related to how heavy of an effect a systems IO can have on
performance i.e. hdd. Avast makes things a lot worse as well.
Thanks to its file system shield. Could possibly get a
performance gain by utilising Window's event manager. At Least
for Windows.
