On 2011-11-14 20:14:22 +0000, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
On 11/14/11 11:41 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-11-14 01:50:04 +0000, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said:
Walter and I have been working on the website for a while. We want to
crystallize a clear message of what the D programming language is.
Please take a look at http://d-programming-language.org/new/. The work
is content-only (no significant changes in style, though collapsible
examples and twitter news are a new style element).
Feedback is welcome.
I kind of like it, the structure. I don't like the visual presentation
(but I understand that will come later). But most of all I think you're
being too wordy.
(I haven't read most of the thread yet, so sorry if I am just repeating
what others have said.)
Just take the three main points:
- Modern convenience
- Multi-paradigm power
- Native efficiency
That's all mixed up. Either use use these three *qualifiers*:
- Modern
- Multi-paradigm
- Native
Or these three *goals*:
- Convenience
- Power
- Efficiency
It's a good idea to keep the top message as is and then eliminate the
goals from the bullet points.
But matching each goal with a qualifier/feature makes things more
confusing. At least for me, it automatically raise a bullshit flag in my
head. Just answer this: why does the *multi-paradigm* feature bring
power specifically?
Because it allows you to model difficult problem domains.
Couldn't it bring efficiency or convenience instead
or in addition to power?
It could, but that would be secondary at best.
How many ways could you combine words from
these two lists and it'd still mean the same thing?
Not many.
You mean this doesn't make sense to you?
- Multi-paradigm convenience: it's much more convenient than mixing
code from two or more languages.
- Native power: can use every bit of power your hardware can provide
because it's native.
- Modern efficiency: all modern languages now have good optimizers
built-in, making the code efficient.
It probably makes more sense from your perspective to match them the
way you did, I won't contest that. But there's always a way to match
them differently that would fit someone else's perspective. So to me it
raises questions whether those words mean anything or they are there to
impress the less knowledgeable (buzzwords). Or at least it'd raise
those questions if I were visiting the site for the first time.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
