Poll: Primary D version

retard re at tard.com.invalid
Tue May 25 04:21:23 PDT 2010


Sun, 23 May 2010 04:14:30 -0400, bearophile wrote:

> Walter Bright:
>> Doing it in an automated way
>> requires whole program analysis, something not entirely practical in a
>> language designed to support separate compilation.
> 
> Compiling programs of a dynamic language like Lua was seen as hopelessly
> inefficient. But today programs running on the the Lua JIT are often
> faster than equivalent FP-heavy D programs compiled with DMD. So it's
> all in having a positive attitude toward technological problems: if the
> need to do something grows strong enough, people usually find a way to
> do it :-)

I don't think the D community is really interested in hearing something 
positive about dynamically typed non-native languages. Traditionally 
that's the best way to wreck your efficiency and it's tough to admit that 
those languages are now better. The traditional native code way is to use 
primitive compilers and brute force via inline asm.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list