Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
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.
People tend to see what they want to see. There was a computer magazine roundup
in the late 1980's where they benchmarked a dozen or so compilers. The text
enthusiastically declared Borland to be the fastest compiler, while their own
benchmark tables clearly showed Zortech as winning across the board.
The ironic thing about retard not recommending dmc for fast code is dmc is built
using dmc, and dmc is *far* faster at compiling than any of the others.
