Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > As long as you discount the vast differences in allocation performance, > the code generated should be just as good as code generated by a C++ > compiler. Your interpretation of performance did not focus on the right > part :) Your test application heavily used allocation and reallocation, > things that have nothing to do with how fast the code compiled by the > compiler is, but are based more on the algorithms behind the > allocation. An equivalent C++-based GC would probably show similar > performance (in fact, I think D's GC was based on a C++ GC). > > This is all taken with a grain of salt of course, the perception is > often more important than the technical details. This thread being a > prime example of it.
I do see the point about allocation and reallocation -- what was bothering me a bit was that even taking those aspects out of the code and preallocating everything, I could write C++ code that _didn't_ preallocate and still ran (much) faster ... :-) > How I would characterize D when talking about performance is that it is > possible to make it as high-performing as C++, but often favors memory > safety over performance. As far as syntax, D wins that battle hands > down IMO. And syntax is way more important to me than performance, > especially at this stage of D's life. Performance can always be tweaked > and improved with few changes to the source code, but syntax changes can > force you to have to modify an entire program. Certainly agree about syntax -- it was not quite love at first sight, but close. In my case performance matters a lot, safety somewhat less -- since I'm used to taking responsibility for it myself, and my programming is quite small-scale. As for perception, my perception is that I like D a lot and will surely be using it more in future... :-)
