Another Phobos2 test

Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Mon Feb 7 17:02:38 PST 2011


"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:iiq4pa$28aa$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "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?
>

(Although, I didn't read the OP very closely, so maybe I'm off-base.)




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list