On Saturday 18 September 2010 23:47:09 Simen kjaeraas wrote: > JMRyan <nos...@nospam.com> wrote: > > Simen Kjaeraas <simen.kja...@gmail.com> wrote in news:i6stke$o0v$1 > > > > @digitalmars.com: > >> Here's a draft of something I'd like to see. I like having the ten > >> commandments, with #0 not really counting. C&C welcome. > >> > >> == The D Manifesto == > > > > Please don't call it a manifesto. A statement of design goals or design > > principles says, "This is what we want to do." A manifesto says, "This > > is > > what everybody should want to do. > > We'll interpret it as 'what everyone who wants to make D should want to > do', then. :p > > Now, checking my dictionaries, I have found no support for your > definition of manifesto: > > man·i·fes·to (man-uh-fes-toh) > –noun, plural -toes. > a public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives, > as one issued by a government, sovereign, or organization. > > 1644, from Italian 'manifesto', Latin 'manifestum' - clear, evident. > "Public declaration explaining past actions and announcing the motive > for forthcoming ones," > > > This does not seem too far off the mark for what the above guidelines > are, and all other definitions I could find agreed with the above.
While manifesto may be technically correct, I tend to concur with JMRyan. It seems to me to be far to ideological/political a term and potentially implies that we're trying to impose it on others. All we're looking to do is to do what the subject says: give a summary of what the principles are behind D's design. We're looking to make clear what D is aiming to do, not push anything on anyone. So, while manifesto make be technically correct, common usage tends to make it more forceful, so I concur that it would be a poor term to use. - Jonathan M Davis
