64-bit

Yigal Chripun yigal100 at gmail.com
Sat Oct 17 13:28:19 PDT 2009


On 17/10/2009 22:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Just Visiting"<nospam at aol.com>  wrote in message
> news:hbcbvs$1ees$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Last things I remember:
>>
>> - DmD is strictly 32-bit
>> - Someone ported a chronically outdated D-compiler variant to Linux x86_64
>>
>> The ideas behind DmD looked promising to me. But most of my programs
>> showed at least a 2-fold performance increase once they were re-written
>> for 64-bit.
>
> Only on 64-bit systems. Which are already ridiculously fast anyway. So what
> if they get some more performance? They already have gobs of performance to
> spare. On a 32-bit system it changes the programs performance down to "It
> don't f** work at all", which is the mark of an incredibly arrogant
> developer who likes to shoot themself in the foot by arbitrarily shrinking
> their own potential user base.
>
>> Therefore 32-bit compilers are just wasting my time, and this is why I've
>> lost track of DmD.
>>
>
> They should make roads that are only usable by Italian sports cars, and take
> full advantage of their special characteristics. Any other roads are just
> wasting my time.
>
>

those are *fine* cars, aren't they?
but seriously, your argument is ridiculously wrong since velocity is 
dependent on the observer.
the OP said and I quote: "32-bit compilers are just wasting *my* time" 
(emphasis added).




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list