On my machine D is faster than his c++ version, so It does look good. I use his own repository so I do not know why his results are so different in my case:
his c++ version with gcc: real 0m0,021s user 0m0,021s sys 0m0,000s his D version with DMD: real 0m0,018s user 0m0,015s sys 0m0,004s his D version with GDC: real 0m0,015s user 0m0,006s sys 0m0,010s his D version with LDC: real 0m0,030s user 0m0,025s sys 0m0,005s LDC is slower because on my system it use shared phobos library, so it takes some time to load it. all others (gcc,gdc and dmd use static libs) When I use shared phobos for dmd, I get real 0m0,032s user 0m0,024s sys 0m0,009s On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d < [email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, December 07, 2017 09:55:56 Antonio Corbi via Digitalmars-d > wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > Jussi Pakkanen (one of the meson build system creators) has > > written a post comparing C, C++ and D. Worth a read. > > > > http://nibblestew.blogspot.com.es/2017/12/comparing-c-c- > and-d-performance-> with.html > > Honestly, I find the results a bit depressing, but a lot of that probably > stems from the fact that it's not idiomatic D code, and any time you do > more > or less direct conversions, you run the risk of things not working as > efficiently due to differences in the languages involved. The author does > acknowledge that, but without refactoring the code to be more idiomatic, it > makes D look bad - though the fact that it does better with memory than C > or > C++ does make the GC look better than you'd necessarily expect. It's > certainly surprising that the GC is the _good_ part of the results. > > I do wonder what the results would look like with clang and ldc though, > particularly since the version of gdc in Ubuntu is going to be pretty old. > It might make no difference at all, or there could be a definite > improvement, depending on what his code is doing and what has changed since > the last gdc release. > > - Jonathan M Davis > >
