D 2.061 release

[Era Scarecrow]

On Monday, 7 January 2013 at 20:23:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> I've also seen benchmarks where the compiler was blamed, where 
> malloc, or printf, or strcpy, or whatever was the actual 
> dominant cycle sucker. Or even that the wrong compiler switches 
> were used. Yes, I've seen magazines publish benchmarks where 
> the 'slow' compiler was used with debug switches on, and the 
> 'fast' compiler had the optimization switches on.

  Sounds rigged. I know I've heard of benchmarks from years ago 
where a windows server system (2000?) was against a linux server; 
The windows machine had like a gig of memory and a bunch of other 
snazzy hardware, while the linux machine was giving the bare 
minimum to run the server (32-128Mb). Also I think Microsoft was 
the one doing the benchmarks... :)