Anyone want to help?

[Dave]

"Bob W" <nospam at aol.com> wrote in message 
news:dt8l4k$bej$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Dave" <Dave_member at pathlink.com> wrote in message 
> news:dt7kmf$2g2o$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>> In article <dt6vhh$1v3n$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Bob W says...
>>>
>>>If I understand you correctly, optimisations boosting D's scores
>>>are most welcome, but we are not necessarily expected to help
>>>the competing PLs too much, right?     ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Feel free to do whatever you want, obviously, and if it happens 
>> that you
>> come up with something that performs even better in another language, 
>> post that
>> on the Shootout for the benefit of others, and also *here* so D can 
>> improve.
>
> I hope you did not take my post too seriously. I actually
> quite appreciate the efforts to give the general public an
> overview how PLs are performing on certain tasks.
>

Not too seriously ;)  You raised some good points that I wanted to respond 
to though. <g>

>
>> Ackermann is included here now anyway:
>> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=recursive&lang=all
>>
>
> Thanks for this info.
>
> I have seen that a D version of 'recursive' was still missing. So
> in the attachment of this post you'll find a slightly modified
> gcc version (2 flaws removed) and an almost identical D version
> of 'recursive'. Due to time constraint I have not attempted to
> do any further checks nor optimisations.
>
> In terms of execution speed the dmd (0.146) compiled code is
> trailing the gcc version, because dmd appears to be lacking essential
> optimisation methods, which would be badly needed for ackermann
> and other similar code.
>

Thanks! I'll put it up soon. It's good to see someone else here looks at the 
Shootout ;)