On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 14:15:18 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 13:09:55 UTC, Etienne Cimon wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 10:11:36 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Thursday, 31 December 2015 at 08:23:26 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
[...]
vibe.d _was_ faster than Go. I redid the measurements
recently once I wrote an MQTT broker in Rust, and it was
losing to boost::asio, Rust's mio, Go, and Java. I told
Soenke about it.
I know it's vibe.d and not my code because after I got the
disappointing results I wrote bindings from both boost::asio
and mio to my D code and the winner of the benchmarks shifted
to the D/mio combo (previously it was Rust - I figured the
library was the cause and not the language and I was right).
I'd've put up new benchmarks already, I'm only waiting so I
can show vibe.d in a good light.
Atila
The Rust mio library doesn't seem to be doing any black magic.
I wonder how libasync could be optimized to match it.
Have you used perf(or similar) to attempt to find bottlenecks
yet?
Extensively. I optimised my D code as much as I know how to. And
that's the same code that gets driven by vibe.d, boost::asio and
mio.
Nothing stands out anymore in perf. The only main difference I
can see is that the vibe.d version has far more cache misses. I
used perf to try and figure out where those came from and
included them in the email I sent to Soenke.
Perf is a bit hard to understand if you've never used it
before, but it's also very powerful.
Oh, I know. :)
Atila
