How many HOFs in Phobos?

[Daniel Gibson]

Am 01.02.2011 21:53, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> On Tuesday 01 February 2011 12:27:32 bearophile wrote:
>> Walter:
>>> It's exponentially bad performance makes it short, not useful.
>>
>> A program with high complexity is not a problem if you run it only on few
>> very short examples. There is a place to care for performance (like when
>> you design a function for Phobos) and there are places where you care for
>> other things.
>>
>> I suggest top stop focusing only on a fault of a program that was not
>> designed for performance (and if you want to start looking at the numerous
>> good things present in Haskell. Haskell language and its implementation
>> contains tens of good ideas).
> 
> The issue is that if you want something in Phobos, it _does_ need to be designed 
> with performance in mind. Anything which isn't efficient needs to have a very good 
> reason for its existence which balances out its lack of efficiency. If the Haskell 
> implementation isn't performant enough, then it doesn't cut it for Phobos, even 
> if it's a good fit for Haskell.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

Well, he didn't want the slow Levenshtein implementation in Phobos (if I
understood correctly), but more higher order functions like fold*. These are not
inherently slow and are most probably useful to implement fast functions as well ;)