tooling quality and some random rant

[retard]

Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:01:53 -0800, Walter Bright 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
> 
> That link shows dmc winning.

No, it doesn't. In the Fib-50000 test where the optimizations bring 
largest improvements in wall clock time, g++ 3.3.1, vc++7, bc++ 5.5.1, 
and icc are all faster with optimized settings. This test is a joke 
anyway. I wouldn't pick a compiler for video transcoding based on some 
Fib-10000 results, seriously.