retard wrote: > Mon, 14 Feb 2011 04:44:43 +0200, so wrote: > >>> Unfortunately DMC is always out of the question because the performance >>> is 10-20 (years) behind competition, fast compilation won't help it. >> >> Can you please give a few links on this? > > What kind of proof you need then? Just take some existing piece of code > with high performance requirements and compile it with dmc. You lose. > > http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.c++.perfometer/37 > http://lists.boost.org/boost-testing/2005/06/1520.php > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/c++/chat/66.html > http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/184405450 >
That is ridiculous, have you even bothered to read your own links? In some of them dmc wins, others the differences are minimal and for all of them dmc is king in compilation times.
