"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:iiq4pa$28aa$1...@digitalmars.com... > "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.1382.1297122691.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> 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...). >> > > Using std.algorithm qualifies as contorting D? >
(Although, I didn't read the OP very closely, so maybe I'm off-base.)