Website message overhaul

[Jonathan M Davis]

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