tooling quality and some random rant

[Walter Bright]

retard wrote:
> 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.

And dmc is faster with Fib-25000.


> This test is a joke anyway.

You picked these benchmarks, not me.