On Monday, November 14, 2011 17:05:19 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 11/14/11 5:01 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: > > On 11/14/2011 04:52 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > >> Many newly-designed languages are wrapped around a single paradigm, > >> and > >> they set a store by being so. D most assuredly and pointedly has > >> different take on that. > > > > As do languages like Go, C++, and Scala. "multi-paradigm" is "completely > > and fatuously generic", to use your words. > > That doesn't seem the case to me at all. Multi-paradigm programming > language has a rather precise meaning - it's a language that allows > several of the classic programming styles (functional, object-oriented, > procedural, generic). > > > This is *my* I told you so > > moment. How many different people have keyed in on this stupid buzzword? > > Not a lot. At least in the circles I frequent it is acknowledged that > C++ is multi-paradigm (there's even a book with the phrase in the title) > and most other languages are not.
I think that the problem is that it _sounds_ like a buzzword and it's not a term that enough programmers have thought about. If you aren't actually familiar with a variety of paradigms, then it doesn't really mean anything to you - particularly since you'll be able to use a multi-paradigm language in whatever paradigm you're used to. Multi-paradigm means a lot, and if anything, I'd argue that D is _more_ multi- paradigm than C++ (particularly C++ 98), so that's a definite selling point. But if it's not a term that you've thought about before or which really means something to you, then it's just going to sound like a stupid buzzword. I think that C++ is really the only language that I've heard termed multi- paradigm (though most languages do allow for multiple paradigms on some level, even if they tend to focus heavily on one), and D definitely deserves that designation as well. - Jonathan M Davis
