On Sunday, 25 August 2013 at 22:27:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
It's also clear to me that unless D achieves performance parity
with C++, D is not going to be considered for a lot of
applications.
The good news is that I believe that D is technically capable
of beating C++ on performance.
That is probably true for a large part of the existing and
potential clientele.
But while performance *is* important to me, my concern happens to
not be performance to the max but rather the reliability aspects.
Gladly, D delivers - and delivers quite well - in that regard,
too.
As for performance, maybe I'm plain old-school, i.e. falling back
to asm (or C as a cross platform "asm") for those few really
critical sections.
From what I see around here, it seems that D still has quite some
minor quirks. With all respect due (and well deserved) I consider
it more important to get D really stable and well rounded.
Actually, I think, D can afford some time to beat C++ in
performance because thanks to it's asm capabilities, it's build
in coverage stats and some other goodies, there always *is* some
solution for performance.
But then, maybe D's beauty in part lies in the fact that it
offers a lot regarding safety/reliabilty - and - very nice
performance, too ;)
