On 11/14/2011 08:41 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-11-14 01:50:04 +0000, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
Walter and I have been working on the website for a while. We want to
crystallize a clear message of what the D programming language is.
Please take a look at http://d-programming-language.org/new/. The work
is content-only (no significant changes in style, though collapsible
examples and twitter news are a new style element).
Feedback is welcome.
I kind of like it, the structure. I don't like the visual presentation
(but I understand that will come later). But most of all I think you're
being too wordy.
(I haven't read most of the thread yet, so sorry if I am just repeating
what others have said.)
Just take the three main points:
- Modern convenience
- Multi-paradigm power
- Native efficiency
That's all mixed up. Either use use these three *qualifiers*:
- Modern
- Multi-paradigm
- Native
Or these three *goals*:
- Convenience
- Power
- Efficiency
+1. Gets us rid of the buzzy 'Multi-paradigm' in the title too.
But matching each goal with a qualifier/feature makes things more
confusing. At least for me, it automatically raise a bullshit flag in my
head. Just answer this: why does the *multi-paradigm* feature bring
power specifically? Couldn't it bring efficiency or convenience instead
or in addition to power? How many ways could you combine words from
these two lists and it'd still mean the same thing?
