Slow performance compared to C++, ideas?

Regan Heath regan at netmail.co.nz
Wed Jun 5 07:08:46 PDT 2013


On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:53:58 +0100, Michal Minich  
<michal.minich at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 17:18:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>   override is not comparable
>> because it improves code correctness and maintainability, for which  
>> there is ample prior evidence. It's also a matter for which, unlike  
>> virtual/final, there is no reasonable recourse.
>
> Virtual by default makes it simpler to call method on object that is not  
> initialized yet (constructor not called yet). This situation is possible  
> regardless if virtual is default or not (it can just happen more easily).

Yeah, it happened to me in C++ .. same with virtuals in the destructor.   
Lesson learned first time tho :p

> I think this calling virtual function in constructor should generate a  
> warning. (I wouldn't be surprised if there is enhancement request filed  
> for this already)

With virtual by default, could D statically verify/deny these?  What about  
with static by default?  Does it get easier or harder to detect/deny these  
in either case?

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list