Tue, 25 May 2010 14:22:47 -0700, Walter Bright wrote: > retard wrote: >> I don't think the D community is really interested in hearing something >> positive about dynamically typed non-native languages. Traditionally >> that's the best way to wreck your efficiency and it's tough to admit >> that those languages are now better. The traditional native code way is >> to use primitive compilers and brute force via inline asm. > > If this were true, C and C++ would be dead languages. C++, for example, > is often used in combination with Python. The C++ part is for the bits > that need to be fast. > > BTW, even the best compilers fall far short of what an expert can do > with assembler.
It's impossible to say whether e.g. LuaJIT is faster than some C++ compiler. The code matters. Bad code written by a novice programmer often works faster when a higher level language is used because there's more room for optimizations. However, it really depends on the quality of the optimzations done by the compiler. What I wanted to point out was that if a person needs to choose between D (DMD) and Lua (LuaJIT), it would probably make more sense to use LuaJIT if the user wants better performing code. However, D (LDC) and D (some other vendor who uses modern backends like LLVM/GCC) probably win DMD here. Almost all compilers probably beat it.