D vs C++

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/28/10 9:48 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>
>> On 12/28/10 9:30 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> Don Wrote:
>>>
>>>> bearophile wrote:
>>>>> Je'rome M. Berger:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have almost never used inline assembler even in languages that support it. Of course, this is only a sub-point of your point 6: using inline assembly in a language as slow as Python would be completely pointless.<
>>>>>
>>>>> For scientific computing this is better than D inline asm:
>>>>> http://www.corepy.org/
>>>>
>>>> Based on a quick look at the website, that looks _extremely_ unlikely to
>>>> be true.
>>>
>>> This seems like an extravagant claim: "CorePy. . . regularly outperforms compiled languages for common computational tasks (as hand-coded assembly often does)."  They are talking about interpreted assembly code, correct?
>>
>> It's generated during runtime and then ran straight.
>
> Yeah, I mulled it over and figured out how this works.  For long-running sequences of code I imagine it's quite fast.

Also, it's not a contender to D's built-in inline asm. It's a library! 
If D needs to generate assembler dynamically, copying CorePy's API 
(which I find well thought out) is an easy proposition.

Andrei