On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 18:52:14 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:

My point was that GO's path library is very different from dlang's std.path library. It has an order of magnitude less code so the point was that you're comparing a very small library with much less functionality to a very large one.

I understood your point. I'm not sure you understood mine, which is: I don't care. I want to get work done, and I don't want to wait for the computer.

I didn't say anything about whether it was advantageous, the point was that it's more code so you should take that into account when you evaluate performance. You're post was misleading because it was assuming that both libraries were comparable when in reality they appear to be very different.

I disagree. They're very similar in the sense that, if I want to build a path and want to rely on the standard library, it takes vastly different amounts of time to compile my code in one situation vs the other.


My point was that if you want to compare "compile-time" performance, you should not include the unittests in D's time since Go does not include unittests.

"Go does not include unittests"? Under some interpretations I guess that could be viewed as correct, but in practical terms I can write Go tests without an external library (https://golang.org/pkg/testing/)/ Whether it's a language keyword or not is irrelevant.

What _is_ relevant (to me) is that I can write Go code that manipulates paths and test it with everything building in less time that it takes to render a frame in a videogame, whereas in D...

In practicality, D should not be compiling in the standard library unittest by default.

I think everyone is in agreement here.

This is a problem that should be fixed but still doesn't change the fact that not taking this into consideration would be an unfair comparison.

No, no, no, a thousand times more no.

We can't make a marketing point of D compiling so fast it might as well be a scripting language when it's not even true. I get a better edit-compile-test cycle in *C++*, which is embarassing.

Atila



Reply via email to