Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:02:56 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 19:25:43 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: [ ... ] Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler benchmarking, let

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:29:19 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:04:04 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler benchmarking, let alone idle

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 08:29:19PM +, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:04:04 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote: > > On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > > Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler > > >

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:29:19 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:04:04 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler benchmarking, let alone idle

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 20:04:04 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler benchmarking, let alone idle chattaroo in the forums - is where we need to hit. What we have here,

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 19:25:43 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: [ ... ] Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler benchmarking, let alone idle chattaroo in the forums - is where we need to hit. What we

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler benchmarking, let alone idle chattaroo in the forums - is where we need to hit. What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a high-impact preapproved item of great

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 01:08:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: [ ... ] Exactly, which is why I'm insisting this - and not compiler benchmarking, let alone idle chattaroo in the forums - is where we need to hit. What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a high-impact preapproved

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tuesday, April 03, 2018 21:08:48 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 04/03/2018 05:53 PM, bachmeier wrote: > > On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 21:17:35 UTC, Rubn wrote: > >> I feel that's probably the case for any comparisons across two > >> languages, you are going to have a person

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On 04/03/2018 05:53 PM, bachmeier wrote: On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 21:17:35 UTC, Rubn wrote: I feel that's probably the case for any comparisons across two languages, you are going to have a person that is more knowledgeable in one language than another. Mistakes are going to be made, but I

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 23:29:34 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 19:07:54 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 10:24:15 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 18:52:14 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: You still missed my point. I got

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tuesday, April 03, 2018 16:15:35 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 10:59:13PM +, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 20:47:48 UTC, Kagamin wrote: > > > On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 16:12:44 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: > > > > *

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

Am Tue, 3 Apr 2018 16:15:35 -0700 schrieb "H. S. Teoh" : > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 10:59:13PM +, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > That sentence might as well be fingernails on a blackboard for me! I > > save compulsively. Whenever I stop typing, C-x C-s it is

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 11:09:10PM +, burjui via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > H. S. Teoh is not the only one here cringing at "fast code fast" on > the main page. I use D from time to time for over 10 years now, and > even used it at work and it was a relatively positive experience, > thanks

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 19:07:54 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 10:24:15 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 18:52:14 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: You still missed my point. I got your point. I'm disagreeing. You're post was saying that "D

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 10:59:13PM +, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 20:47:48 UTC, Kagamin wrote: > > On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 16:12:44 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: > > > * Building a whole project in C++ still takes a lot longer since D > > > scales much

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

Atila laid it out pretty clear: he doesn't care about the differences, he wants the work to be done. And I'm with him on that. Go and it's standard library may be way simpler, but it get's the job done (which is trivial in both cases, by the way) almost instantaneously, which is a much bigger

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 21:53:35 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 21:17:35 UTC, Rubn wrote: I feel that's probably the case for any comparisons across two languages, you are going to have a person that is more knowledgeable in one language than another. Mistakes are going

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 20:47:48 UTC, Kagamin wrote: On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 16:12:44 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: * Building a whole project in C++ still takes a lot longer since D scales much better, but that's not my typical worflow, nor should it be anyone else's. I can write code for

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 21:17:35 UTC, Rubn wrote: I feel that's probably the case for any comparisons across two languages, you are going to have a person that is more knowledgeable in one language than another. Mistakes are going to be made, but I think it should be blatantly obvious that

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 19:07:54 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 10:24:15 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 18:52:14 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: My point was that if you want to compare "compile-time" performance, you should not include the

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 16:12:44 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: * Building a whole project in C++ still takes a lot longer since D scales much better, but that's not my typical worflow, nor should it be anyone else's. I can write code for days without even saving :) What's the point to compile

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 at 10:24:15 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 18:52:14 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: My point was that GO's path library is very different from dlang's std.path library. It has an order of magnitude less code so the point was that you're comparing a

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 10:24:15AM +, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > We can't make a marketing point of D compiling so fast it might as > well be a scripting language when it's not even true. I get a better > edit-compile-test cycle in *C++*, which is embarassing. [...] +1. And

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Sunday, 1 April 2018 at 02:40:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 3/30/2018 1:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Could be faster. It's been a fair amount of time since somebody has done profiling of dmd. It needs to be done. There's probably plenty of low hanging fruit. Speculating about why

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 18:52:14 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: My point was that GO's path library is very different from dlang's std.path library. It has an order of magnitude less code so the point was that you're comparing a very small library with much less functionality to a very large

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Monday, April 02, 2018 17:15:40 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 4/2/18 4:05 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > One concern I have is version(unittest) blocks. In order to avoid code > > breakage, those would need to still be compiled in. I know that I've > > personally used

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 19:32:33 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 4/2/18 12:28 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/02/2018 12:22 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: Lately this has been mentioned more and more frequently.  So what's the status on this?  Are we going to move forward with making it so

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On 4/2/18 4:05 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: One concern I have is version(unittest) blocks. In order to avoid code breakage, those would need to still be compiled in. I know that I've personally used version(unittest) blocks that had package access level and were then imported in the unit tests

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On 4/2/18 3:55 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 03:28:02PM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] We really need to change the unittest import strategy. [...] I think this has been established beyond reasonable doubt for the last little while. What about we

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Monday, April 02, 2018 12:55:05 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 03:28:02PM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via > Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > > > We really need to change the unittest import strategy. > > [...] > > I think this has been established beyond reasonable

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 03:28:02PM -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > We really need to change the unittest import strategy. [...] I think this has been established beyond reasonable doubt for the last little while. What about we start hashing out a solution? AFAIK,

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On 4/2/18 12:28 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/02/2018 12:22 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: Lately this has been mentioned more and more frequently.  So what's the status on this?  Are we going to move forward with making it so that -unittest only applies to modules supplied on the command-line?

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On 4/2/18 8:33 AM, Atila Neves wrote: No... that's ~11.583x with no unittests and ~43.75x with. The former number not being interesting to me in the slightest. Here is an interesting tidbit as well -- importing with -unittest takes 4x as long AND NO CODE IS GENERATED OR WILL EVER BE

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Monday, April 02, 2018 18:52:14 Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 12:33:37 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: > > On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 16:41:42 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: > >> Seems like you're comparing apples to oranges. > > > > No, I'm comparing one type of

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 12:33:37 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 16:41:42 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: Seems like you're comparing apples to oranges. No, I'm comparing one type of apple to another with regards to weight in my shopping bag before I've even taken a bite.

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On 04/02/2018 12:22 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: Lately this has been mentioned more and more frequently. So what's the status on this? Are we going to move forward with making it so that -unittest only applies to modules supplied on the command-line? Has there been an investigation into how

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 12:09:01PM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 04/02/2018 08:35 AM, Atila Neves wrote: > > On Sunday, 1 April 2018 at 02:40:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > > > On 3/30/2018 1:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > > > Could be faster. > > > > > > It's

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On 04/02/2018 08:35 AM, Atila Neves wrote: On Sunday, 1 April 2018 at 02:40:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 3/30/2018 1:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Could be faster. It's been a fair amount of time since somebody has done profiling of dmd. It needs to be done. There's probably plenty

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 12:35:03PM +, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 1 April 2018 at 02:40:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > > On 3/30/2018 1:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > > Could be faster. > > > > It's been a fair amount of time since somebody has done profiling of >

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 12:35:03 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: On Sunday, 1 April 2018 at 02:40:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 3/30/2018 1:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Could be faster. It's been a fair amount of time since somebody has done profiling of dmd. It needs to be done. There's

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Monday, 2 April 2018 at 12:33:37 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: I don't think how big the files are is revelant for me, a user of the standard library. If I want to do something with paths and don't want to roll my own code, I pay a price for it in D, whereas it's relatively free with Go. It makes

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Sunday, 1 April 2018 at 02:40:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 3/30/2018 1:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Could be faster. It's been a fair amount of time since somebody has done profiling of dmd. It needs to be done. There's probably plenty of low hanging fruit. Speculating about why

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 16:41:42 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: Seems like you're comparing apples to oranges. No, I'm comparing one type of apple to another with regards to weight in my shopping bag before I've even taken a bite. Go's path.go is very small, a 215 line file:

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Sunday, 1 April 2018 at 02:40:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 3/30/2018 1:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Could be faster. It's been a fair amount of time since somebody has done profiling of dmd. It needs to be done. There's probably plenty of low hanging fruit. Speculating about why

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On 3/30/2018 1:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Could be faster. It's been a fair amount of time since somebody has done profiling of dmd. It needs to be done. There's probably plenty of low hanging fruit. Speculating about why it is slow is pointless without data.

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Sunday, April 01, 2018 01:25:41 Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Saturday, 31 March 2018 at 21:37:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > On Saturday, March 31, 2018 08:28:31 Jonathan Marler via > > > > Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 20:17:39 UTC, Andrei

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Saturday, 31 March 2018 at 21:37:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Saturday, March 31, 2018 08:28:31 Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 20:17:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 3/30/18 12:12 PM, Atila Neves wrote: >> Fast code fast, they said. It'll

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On 3/31/18 5:37 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: And every time you used another library, you'd have the same problem and have to add -unittest=- whatever for each and every one of them, or you would have to use -unittest= with everything from your application or library rather than using -unittest.

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Saturday, March 31, 2018 08:28:31 Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 20:17:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu > > wrote: > > On 3/30/18 12:12 PM, Atila Neves wrote: > >> Fast code fast, they said. It'll be fun, they said. Here's a D > >> > >> file: > >> import

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 20:17:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 3/30/18 12:12 PM, Atila Neves wrote: Fast code fast, they said. It'll be fun, they said. Here's a D file:     import std.path; Yep, that's all there is to it. Let's compile it on my laptop:     /tmp % time dmd -c 

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 20:40:16 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 20:17:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 3/30/18 12:12 PM, Atila Neves wrote: Fast code fast, they said. It'll be fun, they said. Here's a D file:     import std.path; Yep, that's all there is to

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 20:17:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 3/30/18 12:12 PM, Atila Neves wrote: Fast code fast, they said. It'll be fun, they said. Here's a D file:     import std.path; Yep, that's all there is to it. Let's compile it on my laptop:     /tmp % time dmd -c 

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 16:12:44 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: Fast code fast, they said. It'll be fun, they said. Here's a D file: import std.path; Yep, that's all there is to it. Let's compile it on my laptop: /tmp % time dmd -c foo.d dmd -c foo.d 0.12s user 0.02s system 98%

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On 3/30/18 12:12 PM, Atila Neves wrote: Fast code fast, they said. It'll be fun, they said. Here's a D file:     import std.path; Yep, that's all there is to it. Let's compile it on my laptop:     /tmp % time dmd -c  foo.d     dmd -c foo.d  0.12s user 0.02s system 98% cpu 0.139 total

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 16:12:44 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: /tmp % time dmd -c foo.d dmd -c foo.d 0.12s user 0.02s system 98% cpu 0.139 total That... doesn't seem too fast to me. But wait, there's more: /tmp % time dmd -c -unittest foo.d dmd -c -unittest foo.d 0.46s user

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 16:12:44 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: Fast code fast, they said. It'll be fun, they said. Here's a D file: import std.path; Yep, that's all there is to it. Let's compile it on my laptop: /tmp % time dmd -c foo.d dmd -c foo.d 0.12s user 0.02s system 98%

Re: D compiles fast, right? Right??

On Friday, 30 March 2018 at 16:12:44 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: Fast code fast, they said. It'll be fun, they said. Here's a D file: import std.path; Yep, that's all there is to it. Let's compile it on my laptop: /tmp % time dmd -c foo.d dmd -c foo.d 0.12s user 0.02s system 98%

D compiles fast, right? Right??

Fast code fast, they said. It'll be fun, they said. Here's a D file: import std.path; Yep, that's all there is to it. Let's compile it on my laptop: /tmp % time dmd -c foo.d dmd -c foo.d 0.12s user 0.02s system 98% cpu 0.139 total That... doesn't seem too fast to me. But