Lower than C?

renoX renosky at free.fr
Sun Dec 9 02:30:30 PST 2007


Jesse Phillips a écrit :
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:25:54 -0500, bearophile wrote:
> 
>> You have have read this already, but I have found it interesting:
>> http://my.opera.com/Vorlath/blog/2007/10/07/wasted-power
>>
>> They show me why D may enjoy gaining some things at a level even lower
>> than C, to allow it to use the modern CPUs better. There one comment by
>> spc476 reminds me that D can actually have vector ops too someday ;-) I
>> think it may exist a language that is both safe enough and allows to
>> give hints to the compiler with a nice syntax to allow some of the
>> optimizations that article discusses a lot about.
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
> 
> If you look at the comments, someone said that the problem is C is too 
> low level. I happen to mostly agree with is. I will use a non-computer 
> related example.

That's the theory yes: giving more information to the compiler should 
produce better performing programs, the truth is that all our high level 
language are usually slower than C..

Regards,
renoX



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list