On Monday, 28 September 2015 at 13:20:54 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Monday, 28 September 2015 at 10:02:20 UTC, Chris wrote:

Hi, I've just read the post. It's nice, it doesn't waste the reader's time and comes straight to the point (apart from highlighting D's strength). I agree, however, that the title could have been better in terms of attracting readers. Since you mention game programming, maybe it would be good to mention it somehow in the title, something to this effect:

"A common problem in game programming and how D solved it"

or something like that.

In this way someone who's interested in game programming may read it or at least take note of the fact that D is mentioned in the context of game programming (and offers solutions). You would want to think less like an engineer when writing and more like an editor / PR guy who wants to get readers interested. Good headlines are the most difficult part.

I think it's a perfect title. "vector swizzling" is a common term for anyone working with the graphics side of games and is also applicable outside of games development for any graphics programming. Good keyword title.

"Vector swizzling" should definitely be mentioned in the keywords or a in a sub heading. But IMO "game development" should be in the headline, or "graphics programming", although I think "game development" would attract a wider audience than "graphics programming".

It's best to keep it as general as possible (within reason). There is the temptation to think like an engineer and be very specific, but this will only attract a small audience, i.e. those that look for "vector swizzling". IMO, it makes more sense to have the article come up, when somebody types "game development vectors" or "game development dlang". And don't forget that a good title catches the reader's attention when s/he just skims through a homepage / search results, regardless of whether or not s/he's looking for "vector swizzling".

Reply via email to