On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:00:29 +0200 "Vladimir Panteleev" <[email protected]> wrote: > > There's also the question of priorities. Would you rather than > effort is spent on optimizing std.process (and dealing with all > the fallout from any such optimizations), or working on something > that is acutely missing and hurting D? >
While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the other points you raise, Phobos's excess allocations *are* verifiability hurting D. A couple of the biggest potential user bases for D are videogames and embedded. I feel confident in saying that no other language has as much potential in these areas as D has. But these groups have *already*, vocally, been facing the problem of avoiding/rewriting potentially-large parts of Phobos, or sticking with C/C++. Now, you could argue that many of these people are simply being overly fearful of a merely imagined problem, but even if that's true, the problem is still real in it's effects: Hindering D adoption and causing people to (perhaps needlessly) avoid/rewrite parts of Phobos. Now, I'm not suggesting that we do *or* don't start a big effort to minimize allocations throughout Phobos, I'm simply objecting to the implication that unnecessary allocations in Phobos aren't hurting D in any way.
