What would you rewrite in D?

[sybrandy]

>> I wouldn't spend much time on rewriting classic utilities in D. There's
>> plenty to be done anew. One category of tools to be written in D are
>> utilities aimed at D itself (parsers, analyzers, Thrift bindings,
>> protocol buffers bindings, code for DB interface, etc.)
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Indeed.
>
> It could be reasonable to convert existing C or C++ code to D if you're going to
> be heavily changing it, but converting pre-existing applications which are
> currently in C or C++, and which you don't need to maintain, seems like a waste
> of time. It _could_ be an interesting exercise in how to do things in D and
> could very well show shortcomings in D, dmd's current implementation, and/or
> shortcomings in Phobos, but then so would new applications.
>
> At this point, if I can choose what language I'm going to write something in,
> I'm almost certainly going to choose D (though obviously stuff like GUI apps may
> not really be properly feasible in D yet, and some things are just gonig to work
> better in other languages), but I have enough to do (and not enough time to do
> it) without spending the time to rewrite entire, working applications in D.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

All true.  I just figured that it's 1) a nice benchmark to show that 
yes, D can replace C/C++ and 2) a way to review the existing utils and 
potentially make them work a bit better.  I also have a sneaking 
suspicion that there may a few hidden bugs that could be prevented by 
good D programming.

Casey