I just checked the great computer language shootout, and D is currently the #1 language implementation:

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/great/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all&sort=fullcpu

D is in first place (by a significant margin) in terms of both CPU time and memory use (using the default benchmark weighting), and it's in fourth place in terms of lines-of-code.

Very cool.

--BenjiSmith

In article <d49568$rg4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Benji Smith says...
>
>I just checked the great computer language shootout, and D is currently the #1 language implementation:
>
>http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/great/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all&sort=fullcpu
>
>D is in first place (by a significant margin) in terms of both CPU time and memory use (using the default benchmark weighting), and it's in fourth place in terms of lines-of-code.
>
>Very cool.
>
>--BenjiSmith

Yes, well, this is great.  But, once again, D is the only one without a missing benchmark.  The compiler/languages most likely able to compete with D - the C and C++ compilers - are still missing an influencial number of benchmarks.

Let's not give D more credit than it's due. ;-)

I'll bet, though, that the D code is much prettier than the equivalent C/C++ code.  That's enough for me.

-JJR

Let's look at it this way: it would take me, 1 week in c, probably 3 days, in c++, to do what I did in 6 hours with d.  And I was in a very bad situation. This is why I started using D.

So, the benchmarks will come.  For now, D is the best language ever! :-)


John Reimer says...
>
>In article <d49568$rg4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Benji Smith says...
>>
>>I just checked the great computer language shootout, and D is currently the #1 language implementation:
>>
>>http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/great/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all&sort=fullcpu
>>
>>D is in first place (by a significant margin) in terms of both CPU time and memory use (using the default benchmark weighting), and it's in fourth place in terms of lines-of-code.
>>
>>Very cool.
>>
>>--BenjiSmith
>
>Yes, well, this is great.  But, once again, D is the only one without a missing benchmark.  The compiler/languages most likely able to compete with D - the C and C++ compilers - are still missing an influencial number of benchmarks.
>
>Let's not give D more credit than it's due. ;-)
>
>I'll bet, though, that the D code is much prettier than the equivalent C/C++ code.  That's enough for me.
>
>-JJR
>
>

John Reimer wrote:
> In article <d49568$rg4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Benji Smith says...
> 
>> I just checked the great computer language shootout, and D is
>> currently the #1 language implementation:
>> 
>> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/great/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all&sort=fullcpu
>> 
>> D is in first place (by a significant margin) in terms of both CPU
>> time and memory use (using the default benchmark weighting), and
>> it's in fourth place in terms of lines-of-code.
> 
> Yes, well, this is great.  But, once again, D is the only one without
> a missing benchmark.  The compiler/languages most likely able to
> compete with D - the C and C++ compilers - are still missing an
> influencial number of benchmarks.
> 
> Let's not give D more credit than it's due. ;-)

Actually, the fact that D has got them all, and C++ (etc) haven't, _could_ be construed as telling something about the language itself!

Think about it. The number of C++ users is multiple to those using D. And the number of 5+ years' veteran Gurus outnumbers what D has with a margin I can't even imagine. (Do you know any D gurus with 5+ years?)

So, what is left, is that D makes it (presumably a lot) easier to write some of the more unusual benchmarks. Right?

John Reimer wrote:
> Let's not give D more credit than it's due. ;-)

While I agree with this, more exposure for D is always a good thing. :)

--
Daniel Siegmann

In article <426835C9.7080909@nospam.org>, Georg Wrede says...

>Actually, the fact that D has got them all, and C++ (etc) haven't, _could_ be construed as telling something about the language itself!
>
>Think about it. The number of C++ users is multiple to those using D. And the number of 5+ years' veteran Gurus outnumbers what D has with a margin I can't even imagine. (Do you know any D gurus with 5+ years?)
>
>So, what is left, is that D makes it (presumably a lot) easier to write some of the more unusual benchmarks. Right?

Georg, you put it so well... yes, could be true. :-)

Or maybe the C/C++ programmers just aren't as interested in proving a point in this little project.

But, it's probably just too much work for them. ;-)

- John

"Benji Smith" <dlanguage@xxagg.com> wrote in message
news:d49568$rg4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
.......
> D is in first place (by a significant margin) in terms of both CPU time
.......
> Very cool.
>
> --BenjiSmith

Just try to set the weight fields to zero where
other competitors have no programs available
(e.g. Intel C) and DmD is clearly trailing
Intel C, gcc gets a close third. But I would
regard this as being still a very good score
for D - maybe still a touch too good,
because one thing made me suspicious:

All D programs are implemented in the
benchmarks, while most others are not.
So I presumed that a genuine D enthusiast
was not only completing the programs, he
was also 'polishing' the D code.

One example is the ackermann function:
On a windows system the raw CPU time
almost doubles in D if the same code for
"int Ack()" is used as found in the C variant.
(This does not work vice versa, however.)

Furthermore I have not found any apps
yet where D 0.121 could beat gcc 3.43 on
a Windows system in terms of execution
speed (compile time is a different story).

In general I tend to agree to some other
posts stating the drastically reduced
development time in D being its greatest
virtue. D's package of development
time, compile time and execution speed
combined is probably good enough to beat
anything out there IMHO.

Impressive, now I can show off to everyone how cool D is :-)

Benji Smith wrote:
> I just checked the great computer language shootout, and D is currently the #1 language implementation:
> 
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/great/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all&sort=fullcpu 
> 
> 
> D is in first place (by a significant margin) in terms of both CPU time and memory use (using the default benchmark weighting), and it's in fourth place in terms of lines-of-code.
> 
> Very cool.
> 
> --BenjiSmith

"Bob W" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message news:d49fts$14rd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Just try to set the weight fields to zero where
> other competitors have no programs available
> (e.g. Intel C) and DmD is clearly trailing
> Intel C, gcc gets a close third. But I would
> regard this as being still a very good score
> for D - maybe still a touch too good,
> because one thing made me suspicious:
>
> All D programs are implemented in the
> benchmarks, while most others are not.
> So I presumed that a genuine D enthusiast
> was not only completing the programs, he
> was also 'polishing' the D code.

Of course that's true. davejf did the hard work implementing all the D versions. He also made some suggestions for speeding up D, which were incorporated. And there's nothing at all nefarious about that. There's nothing dirty going on (like specially recognizing the benchmarks and putting out hand-tuned assembler, as one compiler vendor did years ago). Rather, it reflects the enthusiasm of Dave and our interest in making D perform well.


> One example is the ackermann function:
> On a windows system the raw CPU time
> almost doubles in D if the same code for
> "int Ack()" is used as found in the C variant.
> (This does not work vice versa, however.)

If the D technique for making it faster doesn't work in C, isn't the problem with C, rather than with D? It is true, however, that one can use D as a "C compiler" and essentially write C. It'll perform about exactly like compiled C would, especially since DMD and DMC share the optimizer and code generator.

> Furthermore I have not found any apps
> yet where D 0.121 could beat gcc 3.43 on
> a Windows system in terms of execution
> speed (compile time is a different story).

Here's one: www.digitalmars.com/d/cppstrings.html

> In general I tend to agree to some other
> posts stating the drastically reduced
> development time in D being its greatest
> virtue. D's package of development
> time, compile time and execution speed
> combined is probably good enough to beat
> anything out there IMHO.

I'm very pleased with the results of the D speed tests, especially considering that the optimizer and code generator being used by DMD are little changed in the last 10 years, and is tuned for C code, not D code. There are a lot of optimization opportunities possible in D that are not explored. To do so well compared to compilers that have been aggressively developed as optimizing compilers by engineers thoroughly familiar with the target CPU chips, is doing rather well.

Bob W wrote:

> Furthermore I have not found any apps
> yet where D 0.121 could beat gcc 3.43 on
> a Windows system in terms of execution
> speed (compile time is a different story).

This is confused. While DMD 0.121 is fast,
you can get D for GCC 3.4.3 if you like that
back-end better ? It would be more "fair" to
compare DMC with GCC (C), and DMD with GDC (D) ?
(to compare the output of the actual compilers)

However, I think GCC loses out to both the Intel
compiler for X86, and the IBM compiler for PPC ?
When it comes to speed, that is. I think the price
for GCC is right :-), and is definitely more open.


Or DMC with DMD and GCC with GDC, if you want to
compare the result from using different languages ?

The only main thing (speedwise) that I find lacking
in D (the language) right now is SIMD vectorization...

Otherwise I find D to be "fast", as far languages go.
(moral: use "DMD" for the reference D compiler name)

--anders

PS.
I like DMC / DMD too, but there is no Mac/PPC version ?
I like GCC because it is portable, and CodeWarrior too.
(it's hard to motivate the cost of CW after Xcode, though...
So nowadays I am using GCC and GDB, instead of CodeWarrior)