Another Phobos2 test

[Jonathan M Davis]

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...).

- Jonathan M Davis