D easily overlooked?

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 13:25:32 UTC, Adrian Matoga wrote:
> On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 13:29:30 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> Yes, D's compile-time regex are still the fastest in the world.
>>  I've been benching it recently for a marketing-oriented blog 
>> post I'm preparing for the official D blog, std.regex beats 
>> out the top C and Rust entries from the benchmarks game on 
>> linux/x64 with a single core:
>>
>> http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/regexredux.html
>> https://github.com/joakim-noah/regex-bench
>>
>> D comes in third on Android/ARM, but not far behind, 
>> suggesting it would still be third on that list if run with a 
>> bunch of other languages on mobile.  Dmitry thinks it might be 
>> alignment issues, the bane of cross-platform, high-performance 
>> code on ARM, as he hasn't optimized his regex code for ARM.
>
> Interesting. A few months ago I wanted to sell ctRegex as the 
> fastest one in a presentation, but in my benchmarks (based on 
> [1]) I found it to be of equal speed or slower than 
> boost::regex (LDC vs Clang).
>
> I've got to take a look at your benchmarks, and repeat mine to 
> check again if I didn't mess something up.
>
> [1] http://lh3lh3.users.sourceforge.net/reb.shtml

The boost C++ benchmark run in the link I gave says it's more 
than 10X slower than the top C one I found D to be faster than, 
so I didn't bother with it.  Maybe you can speed it up:

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?test=regexredux&lang=gpp&id=3

As for your benchmark, I'd be surprised if ctRegex wouldn't beat 
out Boost given how well it does against the faster PCRE in the 
fasta-dna one I tried, but all these microbenchmarks only look at 
particular features of a full regex engine, so it's always 
possible ctRegex is slower in others.