On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 08:32:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 18:45:48 UTC, poliklosio wrote:
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 10:00:17 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 07:26:16 UTC, poliklosio wrote:
First of all, there is not much point optimizing the
language for people who are capable of optimizing everything
to the extreme themselves. D already has as much power as
C/C++ for them.
No... not if you are talking about specific compilers.
Get the logic right. The correct statement is:
"Yes... not if you are talking about specific compilers."
«D already has as much power as C/C++ for them.»
No (D does not already has as much power as C/C++ for them.)...
not if you are talking about specific (C/C++) compilers.
Please don't twist my words. :-)
I was thinking that you compared D compilers (dmd vs ldc). If you
count things like Intel compiler for C/C++, then yes, C++
provides more speed.
If that is what you meant, yes, I'm sorry I twisted your words.
But then this becomes a purely academic discussion because only
financially secure companies in rich countries are going to use
something as expensive as Intel compiler, and only for some very
important high-performance projects. Once you talk about spending
thousands of dollars on a piece of software that can be replaced
with a free alternative, there are million other ways to spend
the money **better**, for example hiring more people or better
people, or paying for longer development, or paying for porting
algorithms to GPUs or buying better CPUs (if software is to be
run in house). So then your point has no relevance to optimizing
the default D performance. It only would if you had to pay
thousands of $ for using D tools.
If you didn't have Intel compiler in mind, then correct me again
as I don't have a crystal ball and cannot know what specific
thing you mean.
