Optimizations and performance

[poliklosio via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 08:32:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 18:45:48 UTC, poliklosio wrote:
>> On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 10:00:17 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 07:26:16 UTC, poliklosio wrote:
>>>> First of all, there is not much point optimizing the 
>>>> language for people who are capable of optimizing everything 
>>>> to the extreme themselves. D already has as much power as 
>>>> C/C++ for them.
>>>
>>> No... not if you are talking about specific compilers.
>>
>> Get the logic right. The correct statement is:
>> "Yes... not if you are talking about specific compilers."
>
> «D already has as much power as C/C++ for them.»
>
> No (D does not already has as much power as C/C++ for them.)... 
> not if you are talking about specific (C/C++) compilers.
>
> Please don't twist my words. :-)

I was thinking that you compared D compilers (dmd vs ldc). If you 
count things like Intel compiler for C/C++, then yes, C++ 
provides more speed.
If that is what you meant, yes, I'm sorry I twisted your words.

But then this becomes a purely academic discussion because only 
financially secure companies in rich countries are going to use 
something as expensive as Intel compiler, and only for some very 
important high-performance projects. Once you talk about spending 
thousands of dollars on a piece of software that can be replaced 
with a free alternative, there are million other ways to spend 
the money **better**, for example hiring more people or better 
people, or paying for longer development, or paying for porting 
algorithms to GPUs or buying better CPUs (if software is to be 
run in house). So then your point has no relevance to optimizing 
the default D performance. It only would if you had to pay 
thousands of $ for using D tools.

If you didn't have Intel compiler in mind, then correct me again 
as I don't have a crystal ball and cannot know what specific 
thing you mean.