Small part of a program : d and c versions performances diff.
Chris via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
Wed Jul 9 08:32:10 PDT 2014
On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 15:09:09 UTC, Larry wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 14:30:41 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 13:46:59 UTC, Larry wrote:
>>> The rest of the code is numerical so it will not change by
>>> much the fact that d cannot get back the huge launching time.
>>> At the microsecond level(even nano) it counts because of
>>> electrical consumption, size of hardware, heat and so on.
>>
>> You say you are worried about microseconds and power
>> consumption, but you are suggesting launching a new process -
>> a lot of overhead - to do a small amount of numerical work.
>>
>> Surely no matter what programming language you use you would
>> not want to work like this?
>
> @John : A new process ? Where ?
> Or maybe I got you wrong on this one John
>
> I am writing libraries and before going further I wondered if
> there were alternatives that I could have a grab on. The idea is
> to have an homogeneous software so we were ready to switch to d
> for the whole tasks/asset.
>
> No new process involved.
>
> I was seaking for maybe a python like programming language that
> offers c-like perfs, without so much writing as in c. Exit
> Cython. Debugging it is a real pain. And executable size is..
> well..
>
> I am becoming lazy and seek for the Holy Grail. Java not
> welcome.
> D seemed like a very good choice and maybe it is, or more
> certainly will.
I wouldn't give up on D (as you've already signalled). It's
getting better with each iteration. BTW, have you measured the
power consumption yet? Does it make a big difference if you use D
or C?
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn
mailing list