tooling quality and some random rant

[Walter Bright]

retard wrote:
> Mon, 14 Feb 2011 04:44:43 +0200, so wrote:
> 
>>> Unfortunately DMC is always out of the question because the performance
>>> is 10-20 (years) behind competition, fast compilation won't help it.
>> Can you please give a few links on this?
> 
> What kind of proof you need then? Just take some existing piece of code 
> with high performance requirements and compile it with dmc. You lose.
> 
> http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.c++.perfometer/37

That link shows dmc winning.

> http://lists.boost.org/boost-testing/2005/06/1520.php
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/c++/chat/66.html
> http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/184405450
> 
> Many of those are already old. GCC 4.6, LLVM 2.9, and ICC 12 are much 
> faster, especially on multicore hardware. A quick look at DMC changelog 
> doesn't reveal any significant new optimizations durin the past 10 years 
> except some Pentium 4 opcodes and fixes on library level.
> 
> I rarely see a benchmark where DMC produces fastest code. In addition, 
> most open source projects are not compatible with DMC's toolchain out of 
> the box. If execution performance of the generated code is your top 
> priority, I wouldn't recommend using DigitalMars products.