A summary of D's design principles

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday 18 September 2010 23:47:09 Simen kjaeraas wrote:
> JMRyan <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> > Simen Kjaeraas <simen.kjaras at gmail.com> wrote in news:i6stke$o0v$1
> > 
> > @digitalmars.com:
> >> Here's a draft of something I'd like to see. I like having the ten
> >> commandments, with #0 not really counting. C&C welcome.
> >> 
> >>                           == The D Manifesto ==
> > 
> > Please don't call it a manifesto.  A statement of design goals or design
> > principles says, "This is what we want to do."  A manifesto says, "This
> > is
> > what everybody should want to do.
> 
> We'll interpret it as 'what everyone who wants to make D should want to
> do', then. :p
> 
> Now, checking my dictionaries, I have found no support for your
> definition of manifesto:
> 
> man·i·fes·to (man-uh-fes-toh)
> –noun, plural -toes.
> a public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives,
> as one issued by a government, sovereign, or organization.
> 
> 1644, from Italian 'manifesto', Latin 'manifestum' - clear, evident.
> "Public declaration explaining past actions and announcing the motive
> for forthcoming ones,"
> 
> 
> This does not seem too far off the mark for what the above guidelines
> are, and all other definitions I could find agreed with the above.

While manifesto may be technically correct, I tend to concur with JMRyan. It 
seems to me to be far to ideological/political a term and potentially implies 
that we're trying to impose it on others. All we're looking to do is to do what 
the subject says: give a summary of what the principles are behind D's design. 
We're looking to make clear what D is aiming to do, not push anything on anyone. 
So, while manifesto make be technically correct, common usage tends to make it 
more forceful, so I concur that it would be a poor term  to use.

- Jonathan M Davis