On Thursday, 27 August 2015 at 14:12:01 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 18/08/2015 21:28, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/18/2015 12:38 PM, deadalnix wrote:
And honestly, there is no way DMD can catch up.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzs-OvfG8tE&feature=player_detailpage#t=91
My instinct also tells me it's extremely unlikely that DMD will
be able to catch. But regardless of that, let's suppose it does
catch up, that you (and/or others) are eventually able to make
the DMD backend as good as LLVM/GCC. At what cost (development
time wise) will that come? How much big chunks of development
effort will be spent on that task, that could be spent on
improving other areas of D, just so that DMD could be about as
good (not better, just *as good*), as LDC/GDC?...
Honestly, while I don't see why dmd couldn't catch up to gdc and
ldc if enough development time were sunk into it, I seriously
question that dmd can catch up without way too much development
time being sunk into it. And if ldc and gdc are ultimately the
compilers that folks should be using if they want the best
performance, then so be it. But if dmd can be sped up so that
it's closer and there's less need to worry about the speed
difference for most folks, then I think that that's a big win.
Every little bit of performance improvement that we can get out
of dmd is an improvement, especially when those improvements come
at minimal cost, and I see no reason to not improve dmd's
performance where it's not going to be a huge timesink to do so
and where the appropriate precautions are taken to avoid
regressions.
- Jonathan M Davis
