On 06/09/2017 03:46 PM, Honey wrote: > On Friday, 9 June 2017 at 20:27:58 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: >> On 06/09/2017 12:29 PM, Honey wrote: >> >> > I think, I should not rely on standard library facilities. >> >> I think you hit a Phobos function with particularly bad performance >> (which can be improved). Phobos is not a slow library in general. > > What I meant to say is: the comparison would have been less biased if I > had written the complete algorithm without relying on different standard > library abstractions (iterators vs. ranges).
You would get the exact performance if you implemented e.g. with pointers. Your test has been very valuable for exposing an embarrassing performance issue. :)
Ali
