Thoughts about D

[Neia Neutuladh]

On Monday, 27 November 2017 at 06:12:53 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad 
wrote:
> On Monday, 27 November 2017 at 05:11:06 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
>> std::string does the same thing. So if I reimplemented subtex 
>> naively in C++, its performance would be closer to the C# 
>> version than to the D version.
>
> You meant stupidly, you would rather use std::string_view for 
> string references in C++.

I last used C++ professionally in 2015, and we were still rolling 
out C++11. std::string_view is part of C++17. You're calling me 
stupid for not having already known about it. (Yes, yes, you were 
sufficiently indirect to have a fig leaf of deniability.)

> std::string is a library convenience type that typically is 
> only used for debugging and filenames. If you want performance 
> then it really isnt possible to make do with a fixed library 
> type for strings so in a realistic program people would write 
> their own.

An efficient text parser doesn't seem like a sufficiently unusual 
task that it should require you to create your own string type. A 
large swath of programs will use at least one text parser.

> Sure. But maybe you shouldn't use a tiny 400k input when 
> discussing performance. Try to think about how many 
> instructions a CPU executes in 50ms...

It is often useful to talk about real-world workloads when 
discussing performance. The reference document I'm talking about 
is a short novel of 75,000 words. It was a document I already had 
on hand, and it was within a factor of two of the largest I 
expected to feed through subtex.

And I already had the numbers on hand: 
<https://blog.ikeran.org/?p=277>

If you want me to do more in-depth testing, you'll have to pay me.