On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 23:07:30 UTC, Norm wrote:
On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 15:22:37 UTC, Rubn wrote:
On Saturday, 3 February 2018 at 08:18:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:16:25PM -0800, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 2/2/2018 7:06 AM, Benny wrote:
> Other languages have slogans, they have selling points.
>
> When i hear Go, you hear uniformal, fast, simple syntax
> language.
> When i hear Rust, you hear safe, manual memory management.
> When i hear D, you hear ... ... ... ...
Fast code, fast
Frankly, that slogan makes me cringe. Makes D sound like a
fast food chain -- cheap code, fast. Would you like fa^Wfries
with that?
Yup I agree, it's a horrible slogan. Speed isn't even a
priority in D, if it was so many things would be different.
- Make dmd's optimizer better, esp. with loop unrolling on
par with
ldc/gdc, or better, so that we don't keep having to defend
poor dmd
benchmarks with "use ldc/gdc instead";
I don't think time should be wasted on making DMD's optimizer
better. It's not an easy job and it'll just pull resources for
something that has no purpose. The compile times with DMD -O
can vary dramatically, it's best just to not use it at all.
The reason I hear as to why DMD even exists instead of just
having 1 compiler like Rust or any other language that isn't
20+ years old. Is cause DMD's unoptimized compilation is fast
and creates reasonably fast enough code for debugging.
I agree, DMD should switch to LLVM backend. But it is unlikely
to happen because the core DMD developers are in their comfort
zone with DMD backend and worried that switching to LLVM would
put them at the mercy of the LLVM community. To be honest
though I don't know how much time DMD backend optimizer really
takes core devs away from D language development. It would be
interesting to see some numbers on this.
We use LDC exclusively where I work because DMD codegen just
isn't production ready. And the argument that DMD debug builds
are so much faster than LDC is bogus. Yes it is faster but
nowhere near the point where we would consider swapping
compilers between debug and release builds.
So that leaves little scripts and the like where DMD could
maybe replace Python. But again, LDC isn't *that* slow in debug
builds either and could do this just as well.
Cheers,
Norm
I agree it isn't that much faster, though that's the argument I
hear. I would prefer to have one compiler that is being worked on
than having split effort for 3 different compilers when larger
communities only have 1 compiler. Not that everyone working on
those compilers will work on one compiler if it does happen. It's
just a shame the solution was to create more compilers.
With DMD it seems like they are entirely unwilling to let go from
using DM tools/code. The backend is just one example. Optlink is
another. DM Make is also another, etc...
