Am 15.11.2011 21:11, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
"Peter Alexander"<peter.alexander...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j9uftl$v0q$1...@digitalmars.com...
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.
"Pragmatic" is always the term I think of as a one-word description of D.
While "pragmatic" fits D, it does not really describe features D offers,
"multi-paradigm" is a bit more descriptive.
I still think the best description for D is "C++ done right" ;-)
Cheers,
- Daniel
