stdio and Tango I/O performance

[Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)]

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> 
>> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>>>
>>>> This ate a lot of time measuring, testing, and optimizing. So I have a
>>>> question - has anyone verified that Tango's I/O performance is up to
>>>> snuff? I see it imposes the dynamic-polymorphic approach, and unless
>>>> there was some serious performance work going on, it's possible it's
>>>> even slower than stdio.
>>> If you have actually tested Tango IO and finds it to be slower than
>>> the "new" stdio, then this would be interesting to know, and also the
>>> test harness in use. If not, I find your suggestive tone above to be
>>> rather rude, given the time put into making Tango IO as good as possible.
>>> If the IO in Phobos has been as slow as you say, I highly doubt that
>>> Tango has been in similar ranges, given that it obviates C IO by going
>>> directly to the OS via a buffer.
>>>
>>> Now, if you have tested that Tango's IO is slower than Phobos, then maybe
>>> you could spend some time helping to improve it too? Your approach above
>>> is rather unconstructive in an overall fashion.
>> This is a misunderstanding. To date I haven't downloaded Tango.
> 
> Then you should before making any sorts of comments in this vein. Maybe you
> even should have compared Tango's IO performance to Phobos' prior to making
> such huge efforts to improve on it (Phobos IO)?

Could you please put the gun down. Sheesh. Which comments? What vein? It 
was a question. I simply asked whether there has been performance work 
on Tango's I/O, without having any prior experience with it. I don't see 
reason for anyone to get offended about that.


Andrei