Fact checking for my talk

[Enamex via Digitalmars-d]

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