stdio performance in tango, stdlib, and perl

[Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)]

kris wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>> kris wrote:
>>
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>>>
>>>> kris wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> Tango should still come out in front, although I have to say that 
>>>>> benchmarks don't really tell very much in general i.e. doesn't mean 
>>>>> much of anything important whether tango "wins" this or not (IMO)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not? 
>>>
>>>
>>> If tango were terribly terribly slow instead, then it would be cause 
>>> for concern. If I have some program that needs to run faster I'll 
>>> find a way to do just that; another reason why tango.io is fairly 
>>> modular
>>
>>
>> That's great, but by and large, the attitude that "this is the simple 
>> version; if you want performance, you gotta work for it" is precisely 
>> what I don't like about certain languages and APIs. This is, for 
>> example, why not everybody really condemns C++ iostreams in spite of 
>> them being a pinnacle of counter-performance in any contest, be it 
>> beauty, size, or speed. People know that C++ can do fast I/O and are 
>> driven by the attitude that you gotta work for it - there's no other way.
>>
>> Just make the clear and simple code fastest. One thing I like about D 
>> is that it clearly strives to achieve best performance for 
>> simply-written code.
> 
> Oh, if there's any implication that Tango ought to be "faster" than it 
> is, then I suspect you're being unjust, Andrei. You'll be hard pressed 
> to find, for example, some routine that hits the heap where that should 
> be avoided. The library was built to avoid such pitfalls
> 
> That aside, tango.io appears to be fast enough and simple enough. The 
> fastest in this case, even, assuming we do something useful about the CR 
> chop, .newline is adjusted, or "\n" is used instead ;)

Oh, but I forgot it's cheating: uses read/write so it's incompatible 
with C's stdio, which phobos is.

Andrei