On 15/11/11 7:30 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/15/2011 05:13 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
He also said: "+1. Gets us rid of the buzzy 'Multi-paradigm' in the
title too." He's obviously against it, but was willing to let it slide.
Well, I am not strictly against it. It is as I wrote in that other post,
if we can find a better, maybe more discriminating, term, that would be
nice. I like the 'modelling power' proposal too.
To me, multi-paradigm is another way of saying "not dogmatic", i.e. you
aren't forced into a single paradigm.
Perhaps a better way to say it would simply be "Pragmatic"?
I think the fact that D's development is based on years of experience
rather than academic ideals, like orthogonality, is very much
understated on the new page.
