tooling quality and some random rant

[Walter Bright]

Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
> retard wrote:
> 
>> Mon, 14 Feb 2011 04:44:43 +0200, so wrote:
>>
>>>> Unfortunately DMC is always out of the question because the performance
>>>> is 10-20 (years) behind competition, fast compilation won't help it.
>>> Can you please give a few links on this?
>> What kind of proof you need then? Just take some existing piece of code
>> with high performance requirements and compile it with dmc. You lose.
>>
>> http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html
>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.c++.perfometer/37
>> http://lists.boost.org/boost-testing/2005/06/1520.php
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/c++/chat/66.html
>> http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/184405450
>>
> 
> That is ridiculous, have you even bothered to read your own links? In some 
> of them dmc wins, others the differences are minimal and for all of them dmc 
> is king in compilation times.


People tend to see what they want to see. There was a computer magazine roundup 
in the late 1980's where they benchmarked a dozen or so compilers. The text 
enthusiastically declared Borland to be the fastest compiler, while their own 
benchmark tables clearly showed Zortech as winning across the board.

The ironic thing about retard not recommending dmc for fast code is dmc is built 
using dmc, and dmc is *far* faster at compiling than any of the others.