Slow performance compared to C++, ideas?

Steven Schveighoffer schveiguy at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 4 09:36:12 PDT 2013


On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:32:31 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling  
<joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net> wrote:

> On 06/04/2013 01:15 PM, Manu wrote:
>> * virtual is a one-way trip. It can't be undone without risking  
>> breaking code
>> once released to the wild. How can that state be a sensible default?
>>   - Can not be un-done by the compiler/linker like it can in other  
>> (dynamic)
>> languages. No sufficiently smart compiler can ever address this problem  
>> as an
>> optimisation.
>
> Have to say that for me, this is a bit of a killer point.  If a  
> programmer
> mistakenly picks the default option instead of the desired qualifier,  
> ideally
> you want the fix to be non-breaking.

Define non-breaking.

If your code still compiles but all of a sudden becomes horrendously slow,  
is that a non-breaking change?

-Steve


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list