Slow performance compared to C++, ideas?
Paulo Pinto
pjmlp at progtools.org
Sat Jun 1 08:19:33 PDT 2013
Am 01.06.2013 16:24, schrieb Benjamin Thaut:
> Am 01.06.2013 01:30, schrieb Manu:
>> On 1 June 2013 09:15, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com
>> <mailto:bearophileHUGS at lycos.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Manu:
>>
>> On 1 June 2013 01:12, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com
>> <mailto:bearophileHUGS at lycos.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Manu:
>>
>>
>> Frankly, this is a textbook example of why STL is the
>> spawn of satan. For
>>
>> some reason people are TAUGHT that it's reasonable to
>> write code like
>> this.
>>
>>
>> There are many kinds of D code, not everything is a high
>> performance
>> ray-tracer or 3D game. So I'm sure there are many many
>> situations where
>> using the C++ STL is more than enough. As most tools, you
>> need to know
>> where and when to use them. So it's not a Satan-spawn :-)
>>
>>
>> So why are we having this conversation at all then if faster
>> isn't better in this instance?
>>
>>
>> Faster is better in this instance.
>> What's wrong is your thinking that the STL as the spawn of Satan in
>> general.
>>
>>
>> Ah, but that's because it is ;)
>> Rule of thumb: never use STL in tight loops. problem solved (well,
>> mostly)...
>
> I have to agree here. Whenever you have a codebase that has to work on 9
> platforms and 6 compilers the S in STL vanishes. Also the
> implementations are so varying in quality that you might get really good
> performance on one platform but really bad on another. It seems like
> everyone in the games industry avoids STL like the plague.
>
> Kind Regards
> Benjamin Thaut
I used to have that experience even with C, when I started using it
around 1994. C++ was even worse between CFront, ARM and ongoing
standardization work.
As for STL, I can assure that HPC guys are huge fans of STL and Boost.
At least when I did my traineeship at CERN (2003-2004) that was the case.
--
Paulo
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list