struct vs class benchmark (was Re: Give struct the status it deserves)

[Alexander Panek]

Amen!

Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> 
>>> Creating a new instance serves no purpose at all. So, as an
>>> optimization, you can do away without constant allocation;
>>> just reuse the same object.
>> I think you are deliberately missing the point, Hasan. I
>> thought the point was to show that heap-allocated things are
>> inherently slower than stack-allocated things.
> 
> It makes no difference for the use of objects if they are on the
> heap or on the stack. Both are only portions of the same address
> space (and may even clash if they interpenetrate).
> 
> The only thing that makes things slow is the allocation of heap
> memory which may cause the garbage collector to kick in. But
> once the memory is allocated it can be used as fast as stack
> memory.
> 
>> Classes are slower than structs. Prove otherwise. I'm happy to
>> be shown that I'm wrong.
> 
> I don't see a reason for this. There's no difference in accessing
> the data. Put a struct on the stack, the compiler will compile
> it to access it indirectly (i.e. by "pointers"). Allocate a
> class on the heap, it get's accessed in the very same way.
> 
> As a rule of thumb: Any data you going to work with in a D
> program is encapsulated in classes. Stuff that gets dumped into
> files or memory goes into structs. It's that simple.
>