On 11/18/2011 11:01 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/18/11 7:22 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu"<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message
news:ja4fhd$2amk$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 11/17/11 11:48 AM, Xinok wrote:
What are its benefits? Higher productivity, fewer bugs, native speed,
fast compilation.

As opposed to other languages that have lower productivity, more bugs,
less speed and slower compilation as goals.


As opposed to other langauges that either don't have all those as major
goals, or do a poor job of them.

These are too "motherhood and apple pie" kind of things, and too vague
to be useful.

Andrei

That's why you go into more detail in the following bullet points. There are lots of terms you could use to describe a programming language: Strict, flexible, powerful, expressive, explicit, etc. Not all of these terms apply to D, so while they may be vague, they still give the newcomer a general idea.

What is too vague is the terms at the top of the page, it sounds like a commercial for a hygiene product. "Intriguing, elegant, Loreal."



D is a systems programming language which seamlessly integrates imperative, functional, object-oriented, low-level, and meta-programming styles into a single package. D compiles directly to machine code, so you get the efficiency of native executables with the convenience and productivity of modern languages.

* I used the word 'efficiency' to describe native executables. D programs aren't necessarily faster, but they don't require an external runtime like Java or .NET. I find D programs have faster startup times and lower memory usage because of that.

* Rather than saying "multi-paradigm", I went into a little more detail, listing the programming styles supported by D. "Low-level" refers to features like pointers, and inline assembly which is standard.

* Providing links to external sources (Wikipedia) on certain terms may help to avoid confusion about what those terms actually mean in the context of D.

* I'm just trying to get the ball rolling on this. I'm sure somebody else will write a better paragraph which puts mine to shame.

Reply via email to