I've been interested in different chess engines lately. There are many open and closed sources project in this field. They are all (most of them anyway) written in C/C++. This is kind of an obvious thing - you have a computationally intensive task, you use C/C++ so you get both portability and speed. This seems like a no-brainier.
However, I would like to question that idea. When .NET first appeared, there were many people saying that .NET idea would not work because .NET programs were doomed to be super-slow. In reality this did not happen. Somebody did a good job with the VM, JIT, etc and we have decent performance for most tasks now. But not all. Microsoft never promised that .NET will be suitable for all task and admitted for some tasks you will still need C/C++.
Going back to the question of computationally heavy task - is there a way to write a .NET program so that it does not perform computations considerably worse that an unmanaged code using the same algorithms? I'd be happy with "constant" speed loss, but anything worse than that is going to be a problem.
What do you think? Can we be close in speed to unmanaged code for computations in managed code, or unmanaged code is the only viable answer? If we can, how? If we can't why?
Update: a lot of good feedback here. I'm going to accept the most up-voted answer.
"Can" it? Yes, of course. Even without unsafe/unverifiable code, well-optimized .NET code can outperform native code. Case in point, Dr. Jon Harrop's answer on this thread: F# performance in scientific computing
Will it? Usually, no, unless you go way out of your way to avoid allocations.