Fact checking for my talk

[ZombineDev via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 14 August 2016 at 23:50:23 UTC, Enamex wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 August 2016 at 18:57:14 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
>> Ok, maybe it's a matter of taste and opinion, but I consider 
>> them to be bad design (idea-wise, not implementation-wise) 
>> because they're sort of the opposite of DbI and compile-time 
>> duck-typing. Maybe they fit nicely in Rust's world but they're 
>> definitely something I would want NOT to use. Concepts/traits 
>> are useless when you have DbI, because you can implement them 
>> in a library if you need dynamic dispatch (e.g. 
>> std.range.InputRangeObject, 
>> std.experimental.allocator.allocatorObject, std.typecons.wrap, 
>> etc.).
>
> Can you demonstrate it through the example you linked to?
>
> And sorry, what's DbI again? :D

Well, I guess it would hard for me to convince you if you don't 
know what Design by Introspection means. Truth be told, when I 
started learning D I also thought that concepts were the best 
idea thing ever (I was coming from C++ background, though I 
didn't have much experience with template metaprogramming), and 
by extension Rust's traits. It was perhaps after one or two years 
of using D, reviewing Phobos pull requests and watching Andrei's 
talk at DConf 2015 that I was finally convinced that concepts / 
traits are something not worth having.
This is one those things that need time to sink in. Just like 
understanding that classic OOP is not the solution to all 
problems and that maybe functional programming is something worth 
looking into (i.e. it's not some academic nonsense).