Slow performance compared to C++, ideas?
Steven Schveighoffer
schveiguy at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 4 09:36:12 PDT 2013
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:32:31 -0400, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
<joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net> wrote:
> On 06/04/2013 01:15 PM, Manu wrote:
>> * virtual is a one-way trip. It can't be undone without risking
>> breaking code
>> once released to the wild. How can that state be a sensible default?
>> - Can not be un-done by the compiler/linker like it can in other
>> (dynamic)
>> languages. No sufficiently smart compiler can ever address this problem
>> as an
>> optimisation.
>
> Have to say that for me, this is a bit of a killer point. If a
> programmer
> mistakenly picks the default option instead of the desired qualifier,
> ideally
> you want the fix to be non-breaking.
Define non-breaking.
If your code still compiles but all of a sudden becomes horrendously slow,
is that a non-breaking change?
-Steve
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list