Website message overhaul

[Jude Young]

On Tue 15 Nov 2011 07:07:11 PM CST, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 11/15/11 2:41 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 15.11.2011 09:37, schrieb Peter Alexander:
>>>
>>> A quick example (could be better)
>>>
>>> "D is a multi-paradigm, type-safe, natively compiled programming
>>> language with a focus on pragmatism. D programs run as fast as those
>>> written in C or C++ without the tedium of manual memory management,
>>> verbose syntax or unsafe semantics."
>>>
>>
>> I like this (but maybe a short note that manual memory management and
>> unsafe stuff is still possible).
>>
>> "The D programming language. Modern convenience. Multi-paradigm power.
>> Native efficiency." however sounds too buzzwordy IMHO.
>> Regardless of the actual words used: This style of pseudo sentences only
>> consisting of an adjective and a noun reminds me of annoying advertising
>> slogans (there probably is a technical term for this, but I'm no
>> linguist). And three of them in a row (or 4, if your count "The D
>> programming language") hurt.
>>
>> Two or three short sentences (in the style of Peter's suggestion) are
>> still short enough that everybody reads them (maybe important parts
>> could be emphasized for everybody who is too lazy to read whole
>> sentences), contain more information and look more serious than a line
>> of pseudo-sentences that sound like taken from a TV commercial.
>
> I understand this objection, and how it reminding of hackneyed ads can
> be annoying. I'd agree with if the slogan were inflated and insincere.
> But it really is a brief rendering of the most prominent features of
> D. If we go with a few sentences about D, any and all parts of those
> sentences can easily be forgotten.
>
> Andrei
>
>

I see one camp that is against using multi-paradigm on the basis that 
it sounds buzz-wordy, and another camp for using because it does 
actually mean something specific.
Whats to stop us from using the term, but also including a link to 
wikipedia?

Heck, I might be technical minded, but I do like the idea of having 
links under all of the main bullet points.
We then aren't only claiming something, we are stating that OTHER 
people are claiming something.

Native efficiency could point to one of the 'speed tests' that i've 
seen floating around.
Multi-paradigm could point to wiki article of multi-paradigm,
and modern convenience could point to something about how using these 
features will speed up programming times.

or something.  Not entirely thought out, but you get the idea.
"ha! buzzwords!   ...apparently they AREN'T buzzwords..." 

my 2 cents.