On 03/17/2015 02:51 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I have had this debate about "all websites looking the same, and so there is no branding" with a couple of new website owners, but to no avail. It seems the fashion has been encoded into the rules of webpage design. The fact that it leads to bad UX appears not to be an issue for them.
It's been my observation for quite some time that the majority of people in the tech sector seem to have come here primarily as a "follow the leader" reaction to computers being "the big, hot new thing". Consequently, we've become completely overrun by folk with a predominantly trend/fashion-based mentality.
IMO, this explains a LOT of things, such as why (ex.) Node.js and Go (among many, many, many others) have been big despite questionable merit, and why anything like D (or pretty much ANY attempt at persuasion by logical reasoning, such as your UX experiences above) which has strong merit but requires a greater attention span and IQ than that of a gnat, usually faces an uphill battle at best.
I think the "by comparison Go -> condo in hip, trendy area" from the OP is even more appropriate and accurate than the author may have even realized. And a good argument for what makes D better.
Lately I've been thinking we're just chasing our tails with the whole "D marketing" thing. Obviously a larger audience and improved (ie, more accurate) public image would be very good for us, of course. But the way I figure: D already appeals, and will continue to attract more of, *exactly* the audience that it's most suited to - intelligent professionals. The other 90% of field will continue darting around sniffing each others rears no matter WHAT we do, even if we DO manage to catch their attention for the day or two it inevitably takes before the next shiny random object trots across their path.
