On 12/13/2012 4:46 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Now they certainly are.
>
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9148
>
> The following you can close if you think 'const' should not guarantee no
> mutation. It does not break other parts of the type system:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9149

Thank you.

On Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 21:28:52 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 01:51:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
And
> if the standard library is twice as slow in implementation A than in implemention B, then most programs will feel *at least* twice as slow, and usually more, because if you call a function f that's twice as slow in A than in B from another function that's also twice as slow in A than in B, then the whole thing is 4 times slower.

Hmmm, forget about this...

On Friday, 14 December 2012 at 08:04:55 UTC, Han wrote:
>
> Then put up a real-time tracking chart of that on the D website: "The
> popularity of D vs. the popularity of The Beatles". I think what you
> answered goes to show the level of dissillusionment of (or shamefully
> insulting level of propagandism put forth by) the typical D fanboy.
>

nice try mr.Troll, but no, you came here and start saying crap(sry if it insults you) on almost 10 pages. if you really need feature "X" you can always do it yourself and even maybe give ur solution to community, instead you are just flooding with same template "how D can be a number one(and no one really want D to be number one, people want good usable language right?) if (people/devs) there is everything don't want to (...)?"

you are saying devs/people ignorant, they give you facts but you don't want to accept them, so everyone is bad?

and now you are calling the whole community D fanboys, what is wrong with u dude?

p.s. i don't want to continue this time wasting discussion

nevermind, i've lost the whole idea...

On 12/13/2012 09:09 PM, SomeDude wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 20:01:43 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 12/12/2012 03:45 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2012 5:05 PM, bearophile wrote:
>>>> Walter Bright:
>>>>
>>>>> ML has been around for 30-40 years, and has failed to catch on.
>>>>
>>>> OcaML, Haskell, F#, and so on are all languages derived more or less
>>>> directly
>>>> from ML, that share many of its ideas. Has Haskell caught on? :-)
>>>
>>> Haskell is the language that everyone loves to learn and talk about, and
>>> few actually use.
>>>
>>> And it's significantly slower than D,
>>
>> (Sufficiently sane) languages are not slow or fast and I think the
>> factor GHC/DMD cannot be more than about 2 or 3 for roughly
>> equivalently written imperative code.
>>
>> Furthermore no D implementation has any kind of useful performance for
>> lazy functional style D code.
>>
>> In some ways, D is very significantly slower than Haskell. The
>> compilers optimize specific coding styles better than others.
>>
>>> in unfixable ways.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. That is certainly fixable. It is a mere QOI issue.
>
> Actually, a factor of 2 to 3 can be huge.

Sure.

> Consider that java is around a
> factor 2 or less to C++ in the Computer Languages Benchmark Game, and
> yet, you easily feel the difference everyday on your desktop applications.

Most software I use is written in C or C++. I think some of it is way too slow.

> But although the pure computation power is not very different, the real
> difference I believe lies the memory management, which is probably far
> less efficient in Java than in C++.

It still depends heavily on how well it is done in each case.

On 12/13/2012 10:28 PM, SomeDude wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 01:51:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>
>> Certainly, you can argue that the faster version should be in a
>> prominent place in the standard library, but the fact that it is not
>> does not indicate a fundamental performance problem in the Haskell
>> language. Also, note that I am completely ignoring what kind of code
>> is idiomatic in both languages. Fast Haskell code often looks similar
>> to C code.
>>
> Well, you can write C code in D.
> You can compare top performance for both languages, but the fact is, if
> you write Haskell code extensively, you aren't going to write it like C,
> so comparing idiomatic Haskell vs idiomatic D does make sense.

Optimizing bottlenecks is idiomatic in every language.

> And comparing programs using the standard libraries also makes sense because
> that's how languages are used. It probably doesn't make much sense in a
> microbenchmark, but in a larger program it certainly does. ...

That is not what we are arguing.

On Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 23:59:29 UTC, bearophile wrote:

-snip-

> But as usual you have to take such comparisons cum grano salis, because there are a lot more people working on the GHC compiler and because the Shootout Haskell solutions are quite un-idiomatic (you can see it also from the Shootout site itself, taking a look at the length of the solutions) and they come from several years of maniac-level discussions (they have patched the Haskell compiler and its library several times to improve the results of those benchmarks):
>
> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Shootout


I looked at that haskellwiki page but I didn't find anything to suggest -- "they have patched the Haskell compiler and its library several times to improve the results of those benchmarks"?

Was it something the compiler writers told you?

On Saturday, 15 December 2012 at 17:11:01 UTC, Isaac Gouy wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 23:59:29 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
>> But as usual you have to take such comparisons cum grano salis, because there are a lot more people working on the GHC compiler and because the Shootout Haskell solutions are quite un-idiomatic (you can see it also from the Shootout site itself, taking a look at the length of the solutions) and they come from several years of maniac-level discussions (they have patched the Haskell compiler and its library several times to improve the results of those benchmarks):
>>
>> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Shootout
>
>
> I looked at that haskellwiki page but I didn't find anything to suggest -- "they have patched the Haskell compiler and its library several times to improve the results of those benchmarks"?
>
> Was it something the compiler writers told you?

Probably bearophile meant that the shootout allowed them to see some weaknesses in some implementations, and therefore helped them improve on those. It's also something that would benefit D if, say, GDC was granted to come back in the shootout. Given it's now widely acknowledged (at least in the programming communities) to be one of the most promising languages around...

> if, say, GDC was granted to come back in the shootout. Given it's now widely acknowledged (at least in the programming communities) to be one of the most promising languages around...

And especially if you also consider the fact that there Clean and ATS are in the shootout and I'm guessing that very few people use those.

On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 15:45:32 UTC, jerro wrote:
>> if, say, GDC was granted to come back in the shootout. Given it's now widely acknowledged (at least in the programming communities) to be one of the most promising languages around...
>
> And especially if you also consider the fact that there Clean and ATS are in the shootout and I'm guessing that very few people use those.


See

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Why_did_D_leave_the_programming_language_shootout_and_will_it_return_144864.html#N144870