Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'm just saying that marketability of D does
not change no matter what appropriate term you choose.
And this is our fundamental disagreement. I think the choices of names matters a
lot.
If names don't matter, why not name your son "Sue" ? :-)
But were there functions named zoomTechnology() and smartLink()? Were
their tools named zoom or smartl or something? Is that what pushed them
over the edge, or was it the bullet on the packaging that said:
* Includes zoom technology!
I don't believe that there is any fundamental difference between the name of a
function and the name of the technology.
But people don't search google for "duck typing programming languages"
and pick the language they're going to use from this list!
They may very well search "duck typing in the D programming language". Heck,
that's what I do when I'm investigating whether language X supports feature Y. I
do it a lot.
I think you
are really going cuckoo over this feature like it's the best thing since
ranges, and I don't see it being that.
I am happy with the name ranges for what it does, I think it's exactly right. Am
I going cuckoo over this one? Perhaps. But I also believe that even getting the
small details right is important.
It reminds me of when a friend visited my house. After a very brief interval, he
announced could tell it was a quality house, not a cheap facade. Intrigued, I
asked him how. He said that the screw slots holding the wall plates on were all
aligned the same way. It's a wholly irrelevant detail, added absolutely nothing
to the function, but he said such attention to detail indicated the contractor
cared about getting the details right.
Invariant vs. immutable is not the same as adaptTo vs. duck. Invariant
already had a meaning in D1, and when choosing a new name, it was
logical to use immutable. Is immutable an 'exciting marketing term'?
No, it's as boring as they come. But it's definitely the best term for
the job. Let's focus on choosing the best term for what 'adaptTo' does,
and when we market that D does duck typing in an article or a list of
features (that shows up on google), we can include all the features of D
that do duck typing.
With invariant I *always* had to explain it (even to people with no knowledge of
the D1 meaning), and people would looked puzzled even after the explanation.
With immutable, I stopped having to explain it. The name change was a big win.
