Website message overhaul

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/14/11 7:15 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 08:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> 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).
>
> It's not precise at all. Very few languages are actually
> single-paradigm. Is C++ multi-paradigm, even though it bills itself as
> such? Well compared to Smalltalk it is, but its functional support is
> crap, and generics are a nightmare. Is Java multi-paradigm? Why not? It
> isn't as religious as Smalltalk, has primites and arrays, with some
> generic support, and you can always kluge functional programming. What
> about Common Lisp? Sure, it has lots of parenthesis, but you can bend
> the language and it has support for objects (CLOS).

Statements and views can be bent in various ways. For example, I think 
it would be tenuous to bill Java as multi-paradigm. Of course you could 
if you really wanted, but you'd go against the grain.

Here we're trying to build a brief and clear message about D's 
differentiating qualities. We're not trying to defend D in a court of 
law. Of course "multi-paradigm" is not precise in the sense that e.g. a 
math theorem, a formal specification, or a legal document is. That goes 
without saying. What I meant to say is that it is more precise than e.g. 
"productive" or "with modeling power".

> Multi-paradigm is *not* a selling point. Explicit features are.

We have a good amount of evidence suggesting that laundry lists of 
features are a weak means to sell D.

> This is
> one of these cases where you are arguing from a dead-end position.

I think it's simpler than that - to be frank, it's probably the time to 
reckon it's you who is the problem. Almost without exception, you only 
post from an already emotionally loaded, negative frame. It's like when 
you're posting you're already furious and indignant, but you never allow 
that state to be avoided by engaging in dialog early. Just take an 
objective look at your earlier posts - there's hardly one shred of good 
intention and helpfulness in any of them. You didn't disappoint this 
time either.

> A
> reaction about marketing from your community cannot be explained away,
> because marketing is about about perceptions.

The reaction is generally positive, and we got a lot of great feedback 
and offers for help. Still waiting for yours.


Andrei