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
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".