On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 08:33:16AM +0000, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > As with any of these situation the convoluted hardcoded for a specific > processor code, especially assembly language will always win. I don't > care about that, I care about the fastest comprehensible code that is > portable simply by compilation or execution. Based on this, Java does > well, so does some Groovy perhaps surprisingly, also Scala. C++ does > well especially with TBB (though as an API it leaves a lot to be > desired). D is OK but only using ldc2 or gdc, dmd sucks. [...]
Yeah, I find in my own experience that gdc -O3 tends to produce code that's consistently ~20% faster than dmd -O, especially in compute-intensive code. The downside is that gdc usually lags behind dmd by one release, which, given the current rate of development in D, can be quite a big difference in feature set available. T -- INTEL = Only half of "intelligence".