On Tuesday, 8 September 2015 at 23:20:05 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 September 2015 at 21:11:15 UTC, qznc wrote:
Yes. I'm not sure how to structure this whole suite. The
general goal is "D claims that it can match C/C++ in
performance, let's have some actual numbers". So far D mostly
disappoints in terms of performance.
The most interesting thing to test is how they fare with high
level optimization, not low level optimization. So make sure
the implementation is similar...
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. What is "high level"
and "low level" optimization?
What I want to know is a) how fast is "idiomatic" D code (using
ranges etc) compared to "idiomatic" C/C++ and b) how do they
compare if you push performance to the limits (code beauty be
damned).
For a) you want a similar implementation although C/C++ will most
certainly always loose in terms of length and convenience.
For b) we don't care. C/C++ is free to use builtins, pragmas, and
whatnot. If for loops are faster than ranges in D, then we will
use for loops here.
