Why is this D code slower than C++?

[%u]

Bill Baxter Wrote:
> So the C++ code is ok.  But it's not clear why Material became a
> class in the D version rather than a struct.
Thx. I did not notice, that "Material" is a struct in the cpp-version.

This shows however, that programmers still are not following engeering principles: no technical documentation of the port is given and no one complains.

Instead several people are eager searching flaws in the reference implementation of D for which there is also no technical documentation :-(