What are the worst parts of D?

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 9 October 2014 at 16:41:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
>> Usage of output range is simply a generalization of out array 
>> parameter
>> used in both Tango and our code. It is _already_ proved to 
>> work for our
>> cases.
>
> Got it. Output ranges work great with unstructured/linear 
> outputs - preallocate an array, fill it with stuff, all's nice 
> save for the occasional reallocation when things don't fit etc.
>
> With structured outputs there are a lot more issues to address: 
> one can think of a JSONObject as an output range with put() but 
> that's only moving the real issues around. How would the 
> JSONObject allocate memory internally, give it out to its own 
> users, and dispose of it timely, all in good safety?
>
> That's why JSON tokenization is relatively easy to do 
> lazily/with output ranges, but full-blown parsing becomes a 
> different proposition.

This reminds me of our custom binary serialization utilities, 
intentionally designed in a way that deserialization can happen 
in-place using same contiguous data buffer as serialized chunk. 
It essentially stores all indirections in the same buffer one 
after other.

Implementation is far from being trivial and adds certain usage 
restrictions but it allows for the same extremely performant 
linear buffer approach even with non-linear data structures.

In general I am not trying to argue that range-based approach is 
a silver bullet though. It isn't and stuff like ref counting will 
be necessary at least in some domains.

What I am arguing is that it won't solve _our_ issues with Phobos 
(contrary to previous range-based proposal) and this is the 
reason for being dissapointed. Twice as so because you suggested 
to close PR that turns setExtension into range because of your 
new proposal (which implies that efforts can't co-exist)