Andreas Mayer wrote: > Walter Bright Wrote: > >> I notice you are using doubles in D. dmd currently uses the x87 to >> evaluate doubles, and on some processors the x87 is slow relative to >> using the XMM instructions. Also, dmd's back end doesn't align the >> doubles on 16 byte boundaries, which can also slow down the floating >> point on some processors. > > Using long instead of double, it is still slower than LuaJIT (223 ms on my > machine). Even with int it still takes 101 ms and is at least 3x slower > than LuaJIT. > >> Both of these code gen issues with dmd are well known, and I'd like to >> solve them after we address higher priority issues. >> >> If it's not clear, I'd like to emphasize that these are compiler issues, >> not D language issues. > > I shouldn't use D now? How long until it is ready?
You may want to explore the great language shootout before drawing that conclusion: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ LuaJit ranks high there, but still a bit below the fastest compiled languages (and the fastest java). D is not included anymore, but it once was and these benchmarks can still be found: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/performance.php LuaJit performance is impressive, far above any 'scripting' language. Just look at some numbers in the shootout comparing it to ruby or python.
