std.math performance (SSE vs. real)

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 4 July 2014 at 20:28:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> There's no such thing as done for a working language. C++, for 
> example, is constantly in flux. Every release by every vendor 
> alters which parts of the standard and draft standard it 
> supports.

And no sane devs rely on those experimental parts unless g++ or 
clang commits themselves to them. The C++ standard specs out 
things in advance at intervals specified in years, not weeks.

> Furthermore, the C/C++ Standards don't have much to say about 
> how floating point works - how is that of any help in writing 
> professional, stable fp code?

You know that you are on your own and cannot make assumptions 
about conformance, and address it with code (like ifdefs).

> Do we want to make the spec better? Yes.

Not make the spec better or bring it up to date with the 
implementation. Spec out the language so people know what the 
missing bits are.

> Please, contribute to the things you care about, instead of 
> suggesting in the n.g. that others should do it. That would be 
> far more helpful.

That would imply a fork. And yes, I think that might be the most 
likely outcome that someone forks it.

I don't believe in language design by a comittee. I think the 
language designers should spec out their vision. Let the 
community point out the flaws. Go back to the drawing board. Do 
some rounds. Then commit to it.

I think that would attract more contribution to the core language 
development.

I am interested in contributing code to make a good spec come to 
life, not to add noise to an endless contractual metamorphosis 
that never will lead to anything consistent and coherent.