On 7/14/2015 4:01 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com>" wrote:
But you would not have written DMD in C++ if you did not need
performance?
I wrote DMD in C++ because I did not have a D compiler. The next version of DMD
will be in D.
Languages like D and Go can stay interesting alternatives even when you can
accept slower execution,
You don't have to accept slower execution with D. If you don't know how to write
fast code in D, then you don't have to try any harder to do it with D than with
C++. All the knobs to turn are there.
I basically don't care about raw throughput, but latency and meeting real time
deadlines. Instrumentation can be useful… but I consider that "debugging".
I infer from that that you aren't using profilers. I've said before and many
times that if you're not using a profiler, you aren't getting top performance.
You just aren't. Just like you aren't going to get an efficient airplane shape
without wind tunnel tests. Too many variables.
BTW, take a look at "streamlined" car designs from the 1930s, where they did not
do any wind tunnel testing. It was all based on intuition. Compare with car
designs today, that are all wind tunnel tested. They're very different (and why
car designs today have a sameness about them).
