Am 24.07.2013 09:20, schrieb Peter Alexander:
This comment is worrying:
"Can you try D version without std.random, and use srand and rand
from std.c.stdlib? I think it should be almost same speed as C
version ;-)"
"Wow! Just tried that, and this brings the running time of the
DMD-compiled version to 0.770s from 1.290, the GDC-compiled
version from 1.060 to 0.680s, and the LDC version to 0.580s from
0.710s. Meaning the LDC version is on par with the Clang-compiled
C version and just slightly beats the GCC-compiled C one! There
really should be a warning note in the std.random library
documentation that for performance-critical code the C stdlib
random generator is a better choice."
Is this just because RNGs are value types? It's literally causing
bad press for D, so this needs to be high on the priority list.
that was my second thought - what is benchmarked more
the std library or the code-generation itself
for an pure code-generation test he should implement the stdc random
in pure D, go, Haskell whatever and get rid of the printf stuff - that
would give better results
or he should try to use different random implementations, (but still get
rid of the io stuff)
