I wrote a new program for comparing the efficiency with which Heron handles polymorphic objects in comparison to C++ and D and put it at http://www.heron-language.com/benchmarks/index.html . I tried to take into account the many excellent suggestions brought in from the earlier discussion. As before I would like feedback on how to keep the comparison fair and accurate for the given example.

On a related note: The DMC compiler created very efficient code but two issues came up, it seems to choke on a delete[] function for the C++ example, so I would appreciate if any one could tell me whether it is a bug my code or DMC. The other issue is the DMC has problems with namespaces.

-- 
Christopher Diggins
http://www.cdiggins.com
http://www.heron-language.com

I just tried your benchmark on my machine the time is 219 for D but with VS7.1 the C++ is aprox double that of D as for heron the time is 15 using the above compiler.

I never thought of comparing D with VS and the results supprised me.

Zz

"christopher diggins" <cdiggins@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:c80cdu$9l4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I wrote a new program for comparing the efficiency with which Heron
handles
> polymorphic objects in comparison to C++ and D and put it at http://www.heron-language.com/benchmarks/index.html . I tried to take into account the many excellent suggestions brought in from the earlier discussion. As before I would like feedback on how to keep the comparison fair and accurate for the given example.
>
> On a related note: The DMC compiler created very efficient code but two issues came up, it seems to choke on a delete[] function for the C++ example, so I would appreciate if any one could tell me whether it is a
bug
> my code or DMC. The other issue is the DMC has problems with namespaces.
>
> -- 
> Christopher Diggins
> http://www.cdiggins.com
> http://www.heron-language.com
>
>

Extra note:
 Executable from D was smaller: 77.340 vs 94.208 and i'm using D 0.86

Zz

"christopher diggins" <cdiggins@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:c80cdu$9l4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I wrote a new program for comparing the efficiency with which Heron
handles
> polymorphic objects in comparison to C++ and D and put it at http://www.heron-language.com/benchmarks/index.html . I tried to take into account the many excellent suggestions brought in from the earlier discussion. As before I would like feedback on how to keep the comparison fair and accurate for the given example.
>
> On a related note: The DMC compiler created very efficient code but two issues came up, it seems to choke on a delete[] function for the C++ example, so I would appreciate if any one could tell me whether it is a
bug
> my code or DMC. The other issue is the DMC has problems with namespaces.
>
> -- 
> Christopher Diggins
> http://www.cdiggins.com
> http://www.heron-language.com
>
>

I haven't had a chance to look at it more carefully but valgrind itself doesn't
turn up anything (that usually catches array overruns and malloc problems)
but valgrind doesn't always catch things (in toy examples like this it
invariably does)
--Daniel

In article <c80cdu$9l4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, christopher diggins says...
>
>I wrote a new program for comparing the efficiency with which Heron handles polymorphic objects in comparison to C++ and D and put it at http://www.heron-language.com/benchmarks/index.html . I tried to take into account the many excellent suggestions brought in from the earlier discussion. As before I would like feedback on how to keep the comparison fair and accurate for the given example.
>
>On a related note: The DMC compiler created very efficient code but two issues came up, it seems to choke on a delete[] function for the C++ example, so I would appreciate if any one could tell me whether it is a bug my code or DMC. The other issue is the DMC has problems with namespaces.
>
>-- 
>Christopher Diggins
>http://www.cdiggins.com
>http://www.heron-language.com
>
>

"christopher diggins" <cdiggins@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:c80cdu$9l4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I wrote a new program for comparing the efficiency with which Heron
handles
> polymorphic objects in comparison to C++ and D and put it at http://www.heron-language.com/benchmarks/index.html . I tried to take into account the many excellent suggestions brought in from the earlier discussion. As before I would like feedback on how to keep the comparison fair and accurate for the given example.
>
> On a related note: The DMC compiler created very efficient code but two issues came up, it seems to choke on a delete[] function for the C++ example, so I would appreciate if any one could tell me whether it is a
bug
> my code or DMC. The other issue is the DMC has problems with namespaces.

D doesn't have a problem with namespaces. Replace
    #include <iostream.h>
(which predates namespaces) with:
    #include <iostream>
which is the standard version and compile with -I\dm\stlport\stlport

> "christopher diggins" <cdiggins@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:c80cdu$9l4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > On a related note: The DMC compiler created very efficient code but two issues came up, it seems to choke on a delete[] function for the C++ example, so I would appreciate if any one could tell me whether it is a
> bug
> > my code or DMC.

It's a dmc bug. Oops.

"Walter" wrote...
>
> D doesn't have a problem with namespaces. Replace
>     #include <iostream.h>
> (which predates namespaces) with:
>     #include <iostream>
> which is the standard version and compile with -I\dm\stlport\stlport
>

Been meaning to ask this for ages, this seem as good a time as any so here goes:

    One of the main selling point of DMC is it's build time and exec speed &
size. However, if one want to use the standard library with namespace, one
need to use STLport. How come the size of the output from DMC ballon from
~70KB to ~350KB if one change from using <iostream.h> to <iostream>
& -I\dm\stlport\stlport\. ?
    Is there something I'm not doing that could reduce the size of a program
that uses the standard library back down?

Cheers,
KTC
-- 
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
    - Heinrich Heine

Moving up to DMD 0.86 seems to improve its performance, but I might be wrong.  Also, just for sakes, you might rewrite the D code to be more, well.. D-ish.  :)  Something like the following:

------------------------------
void main() {
  const int SIZE = 1000;

  float         nMsecElapsed;
  d_time        tStart,
                tElapsed;
  Indexer[SIZE] a;

  foreach (inout Indexer x; a)
    x = new Indexer;
  printf("size of array (bytes) = %d\n",(a[0].classinfo.init.length * SIZE) + (a[0].size * SIZE));

  tStart = getUTCtime();
  foreach (Indexer x; a)
    RunTest(x);
  tElapsed = getUTCtime() - tStart;
  nMsecElapsed = (cast(float)tElapsed / cast(float)TicksPerSecond) * 1000.0;
  printf("time elapsed (msec) = %f\n", nMsecElapsed);
}
------------------------------

Note the use of an actual array instead of a pointer, and of foreach.  I  tried compiling this, and it made absolutely zero difference in EXE size or speed.  Not that I really expected any.

-C. Sauls
-Invironz

"KTC" <me@here.com> wrote in message news:c828g4$309a$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Walter" wrote...
> >
> > D doesn't have a problem with namespaces. Replace
> >     #include <iostream.h>
> > (which predates namespaces) with:
> >     #include <iostream>
> > which is the standard version and compile with -I\dm\stlport\stlport
> >
>
> Been meaning to ask this for ages, this seem as good a time as any so here goes:
>
>     One of the main selling point of DMC is it's build time and exec speed
&
> size. However, if one want to use the standard library with namespace, one
> need to use STLport. How come the size of the output from DMC ballon from
> ~70KB to ~350KB if one change from using <iostream.h> to <iostream>
> & -I\dm\stlport\stlport\. ?
>     Is there something I'm not doing that could reduce the size of a
program
> that uses the standard library back down?

That's one reason why I don't like <iostream>.