Concurrency and parallelism panel

[Bill Baxter]

When Herb gave a talk at NWCPP not long ago about C++0x, Walter's questions
and comments were priceless.
Herb asks "would you expect this [messy-looking but seemingly optimal c++
loop] to be faster, or this [nice clean looking c++0x code that you might
think has lots of overhead]".   Walter raises his hand and says something
like "the c++0x version should definitely be faster".   Herb seems to think
maybe he's just guessing what the punch line is, but Walter follows up with
"Sure, because in the C++0x version you end up using using integer
indexing, which is much easier for the compiler to optimize, while the
'optimal c++' version uses pointers."  That was the right answer.   Could
be me misreading his reaction, but it almost seemed to me like Herb didn't
know why his C++0x code was faster than his C++ code.

Not to put Herb down too much, he did put on a great talk.  He's an
excellent presenter and communicator.

--bb

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com
> wrote:

> There's also this other video of you guys discussing C++0x which might
> be interesting (maybe not relevant to D but anywho):
>
>
> http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Going+Deep/C-and-Beyond-2011-C11-Panel-Scott-Meyers-Andrei-Alexandrescu-and-Herb-Sutter
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-announce/attachments/20111116/4d29a113/attachment.html>