Pathing in the D ecosystem is generally broken (at least on windows)

[jmh530 via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 25 September 2015 at 15:43:46 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Friday, 25 September 2015 at 15:40:54 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Friday, 25 September 2015 at 12:50:55 UTC, John Colvin 
>> wrote:
>>> The complexity of the tradeoff is exactly why experienced 
>>> windows developers are necessary here. For example: any 
>>> tradeoffs I designed would likely be very far from 
>>> pareto-optimal on windows, let alone be a good solution 
>>> overall.
>>
>> No, a tradeoff is a tradeoff, one tradeoff is not better than 
>> another
>
> That's what pareto-optimal means.
>

<Putting on my economist hat>
Pareto optimal means you can't make anybody better off without 
making somebody worse off (you used it properly above...).

It's very easy to show that it's possible to have one trade-off 
be better than another. For instance, suppose I am indifferent 
between purchasing 1 TV or 1 computer. This is trade-off 1. 
Alternately, I am also indifferent between buying 2 TVs or 2 
computers or 1 TV and 1 computer. This is trade-off 2. However, I 
prefer the second set of trade-offs to the first set of 
trade-offs because I prefer more stuff. I'm probably 
over-analyzing this...

An alternative to Pareto is Kalder-Hicks efficiency. A 
Kalder-Hicks improvement means that the people who are better off 
from some change are sufficiently better off from that change 
that they could compensate the people who are worse off from the 
change if they wanted to. Maybe that is a better framework for 
thinking about things.