Reduce has dreadful performance?

[weaselcat via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 20:53:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/18/2015 7:04 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Now I get
>>
>> Loop: 3.14s
>> Reduce 1: 4.76s
>> Reduce 2: 5.12s
>
>
> I expect that at the moment, range+algorithms code will likely 
> be somewhat slower than old fashioned loops. This is because 
> code generators have been tuned for decades to do a great job 
> with loops.
>
> There's no intrinsic reason why ranges must do worse, so I 
> expect they'll achieve parity.
>
> Ranges can move ahead because they can reduce the algorithmic 
> complexity, whereas user written loops tend to be suboptimal.

ldc and gdc have no issue optimizing the range code(range code is 
actually faster with ldc)