Thoughts about D

[Ola Fosheim Grostad]

On Monday, 27 November 2017 at 16:44:41 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
> I last used C++ professionally in 2015, and we were still 
> rolling out C++11. std::string_view is part of C++17. You're 
> calling me stupid for not having already known about it. (Yes, 
> yes, you were sufficiently indirect to have a fig leaf of 
> deniability.)

I'n not talking about you obviously. I am talking about using 
languages stupidly... You could use GSL string_span or the array 
version span, or write your own in 20 minutes. These are not 
language constructs, but library constructs, so they dont speak 
to the efficiency of the language...

> An efficient text parser doesn't seem like a sufficiently 
> unusual task that it should require you to create your own 
> string type. A large swath of programs will use at least one 
> text parser.

C++ requires you to write basically most things from scratch or 
use external libraries... What ships with it is very rudimentary. 
There are many parser libraries available.

C++ is very much batteries not included... Which is good for low 
level programming.

> It is often useful to talk about real-world workloads when 
> discussing performance.

Well, in that case Java was sufficiently fast, so all languages 
came out the same...

If we talk about language performance the we need use a different 
approach. If we do a direct translation from lang A to B, then we 
essentially give A an advantage.

So that methodology is flawed.

Assuming that your CPU can execute 20 billion instuctions per 
second.  That means 1 billion per 50 ms, so your budget is 1 
million instructions on 400 bytes? Doesnt that suggest that the 
program is far from optimal or that most of the time is spent on 
something else?

Anyway benchmarking different languages isnt easy, so failing at 
doing it well is usual... It is basically very difficult to do 
convincingly.