Another Phobos2 test

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1382.1297122691.4748.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Monday, February 07, 2011 15:34:26 bearophile wrote:
>> Adam Ruppe:
>> > My gut tells me you'd get much better results if you tried to
>> > write D in D instead of Python in D.
>>
>> That's really beside the point. The point of the post is that there are
>> some spots where I'd like to see Phobos improved. (And I am willing to
>> write part of the Phobos code I am asking for).
>
> Actually, it's not beside the point at all. Regardless of what language 
> you're
> programming in, it's generally best to program in the typical paradigms of 
> that
> language. Trying to contort it to act like another language is _not_ going 
> to
> result in optimal code.
>
> Now, that's not to say that Phobos can't be improved upon (it certainly 
> can be),
> but if you focus too much on how it doesn't do something like some other
> language does, you'll miss what it _can_ do. And it's quite possible that 
> it
> actually does what you're trying to do quite well if you'd just stop 
> trying to
> contort it to act like another language (be it Python or Haskell or Rust 
> or Go
> or Java or C++ or C or Ruby or...).
>

Using std.algorithm qualifies as contorting D?