Website message overhaul

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/15/11 5:43 AM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On 11/14/2011 10:55 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> I don't see why C++ is given a pass for "multi-paradigm" and Java
> isn't. Want procedures? Java has static functions.

That would mean "allowed", not "supported".

> They didn't make primitives and arrays proper objects.

Primitive types being special does not add one extra programming paradigm.

That being said, on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-paradigm_programming_languages Java
is billed as a four-paradigms language alongside C++.

> Smalltalk is single-paradigm. Haskell is single-paradigm. Nearly
> every popular language embraces multiple paradigms. The dynamic crowd
> does -- Python, Ruby, etc. New languages like Scala do, and I don't
> see what single paradigm Go adheres to that you could call it
> single-paradigm.
>
>> 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.
>
> I see. So do I control the what, half-dozen people who all came out
> against multi-paradigm?

Let's enumerate. I searched for all messages titled "Website message 
overhaul" containing "paradigm", then read them again. Bearophile was 
opposed to it. Timon Gehr wrote: "If we can find a less buzzy word than 
'Multi-paradigm power' to describe D's multi-paradigm power, that would 
be nice, but I am also fine with the current state of affairs." That 
hardly counts him as against, but fine. That's a grand total of two.

Not to mention that other participants to the discussion agreed to the 
term either implicitly or explicitly.

> This being two weeks after my single, short,
> and blunt message against using the word multi-paradigm?

It comes after a long, monochord pattern of sniping. Skim through your 
past posts, then think for a second of how predictable a post replying 
to "Website message overhaul" from "Jeff Nowakowski" is.

> You've got blinders on, and it's not the first time when it's about
> something like a name that you are enamored to and lots of people
> dislike.

Walter and I think "multi-paradigm" is a distinguishing characteristic 
of D. It was his idea to make that one of the three, and I agree with 
it. That doesn't mean all other languages are single paradigm, or that D 
supports more paradigms than all other languages. It just means that D 
embraces the multi-paradigm philosophy to an arguably larger degree than 
others, and that's an important tidbit of information about D.

So I'm not "enamored" with anything but I think Walter and I have a 
point. I find it reasonable to not let myself convinced otherwise by 
arguments that are, as I pointed out, weak or flawed.


Andrei