tooling quality and some random rant

[retard]

Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:38:50 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> 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.

Your obsession with fast compile times is incomprehensible. It doesn't 
have any relevance in the projects I'm talking about. On multicore 'make -
jN', distcc & low cost clusters, and incremental compilation already 
mitigate most of the issues. LLVM is also supposed to compile large 
projects faster than the 'legacy' gcc. There are also faster linkers than 
GNU ld. If you're really obsessed with compile times, there are far 
better languages such as D.

The extensive optimizations and fast compile times have an inverse 
correlation. Of course your compiler compiles faster if it optimizes 
less. What's the point here?

All your examples and stories are from 1980's and 1990's. Any idea how 
well dmc fares against latest Intel / Microsoft / GNU compilers?