On 12/29/13 5:15 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad"
<[email protected]>" wrote:
On Sunday, 29 December 2013 at 06:00:31 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
I want to make a point here that many people come to do looking for
something that is as performant as C++ with the ease of C# or Java,
and for the most part (using LDC/GDC) you get exactly that. This
language could convince me to go back to C#.
I think neither Go, D or this language is as performant as (skilled use
of) C/C++.
Wait, what? Go excused itself out of the competition, and you'd need to
bring some evidence that D is not as fast/tight as C++. I have
accumulated quite a bit of evidence the other way without even trying.
This also smacks of "no true Scotsman"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). Any inefficient C++
code (owing to hidden costs of features like unnecessary copying,
rigidity of the language which discourages aggressive optimization
refactoring, the many traps for the unwary that make the simplest and
most intuitive code often be the least efficient) can be nicely swiped
under the rug as "unskilled" use. By that same argument there is a
"skilled" use of D that avoids creating garbage in inner loops, using
allocating stdlib functions judiciously etc. etc.
Clearly there's work we need to do on improving particularly the
standard library. But claiming that D code can't be efficient because of
some stdlib artifacts is like claiming C++ code can't do efficient I/O
because it must use iostreams (which are indeed objectively and
undeniably horrifically slow). Neither argument has merit.
Andrei
