Why is this D code slower than C++?

[%u]

Bill Baxter Wrote:
> D still not as fast as the C++, but close.

I refuse to analyze this any further.

On comparing the implementations of Primary, I noticed, that the OP has introduced a constructor which executes "new Material". There is no "new" in the cpp-version of Primary but a "SetMaterial" function.

On deleting the new expression in the D-version an exception was raised on executing the newly compiled binary.

Astonishingly grepping over the .cpp and .h -files with agent ransack no calls of "SetMaterial" were delivered---but "GetMaterial" is called---which uses the unset "Material" pointer. :-(

Conclusion: at least one of the following is true
1) I have near to no ability to understand c++ 
2) the c++-version is lucky to run at all

In case of 2) the OP has silently changed the algorithm on porting to D.