MIT Technology Review: An Interview With Bjarne Stroustrup

[Craig Black]

I don't see why D doesn't use nedmalloc for its non-GC malloc 
implementation.  This would allow expert developers that avoid GC in certain 
situations glean the best performance possible.

-Craig

"zz" <zz at zz.com> wrote in message news:el51rm$2cth$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> There are many possible explanations for this, and not all of them are 
>> because C++ has better performance. We need to see the code and the 
>> compiler switches used.
>
> Walter, it's not a C++ vs D issue (I preffer D) it's a compiler/library 
> issue.
>
> I don't claim C++ has better performance, but that VS2003 does a better 
> job than DMC/DMD when there lot of memory allocations and even better when 
> combined with nedmalloc.
>
>> Here's a case where D is substantially faster than C++: 
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/cppbench.html
>
> I'll have to run it under VS2003 or VS2005.
>
> I'll post the trivial test we did tommorow, but in another test in C using 
> VS2003 default allocator, the same code was much faster in VS2003 under 
> release then in DMC -o.
>
> In the test we are doing new is called 1,000,000 times and the result put 
> into a boost::ptr_vector in c++.
>
> Zz