Website message overhaul

[Jeff Nowakowski]

On 11/15/2011 09:31 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 11/15/11 5:43 AM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
>>
>> 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".

Java explicitly supports "static" functions that are not part of an 
object. Math.abs() is a common example.

Both you and Walter have been supporting C++ as multi-paradigm, but it's 
functional support is awful and generics are a nightmare to use. The 
only reason C++ has that billing is because it came out when Smalltalk 
was *the* object-oriented language, and it took "everything is an 
object" very seriously. It was also slow as hell and unfamiliar to C 
users, so C++ marketed itself differently.

> 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.

He also said: "+1. Gets us rid of the buzzy 'Multi-paradigm' in the 
title too." He's obviously against it, but was willing to let it slide.

There's also:

- Lutger Blijdestijn, while he didn't explicitly come out against 
multi-paradigm, offered an alternative: "I like the term modeling power 
a lot, and would use this as the main point."

- Robert Clipsham, who said: "It's covered in buzz words. Are you trying 
to appeal to managers or programmers?" Maybe he can clarify if that 
includes multi-paradigm. I assume yes.

- And Jonathon Davis, while he defends it, he also damns it: "I think 
that the problem is that it _sounds_ like a buzzword and it's not a
term that enough programmers have thought about. [..] 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."

By the way, the idea that somebody like bearophile hasn't thought about 
different paradigms is laughable.

- Paulo Pinto and Jacob Carlborg have also questioned why you don't 
consider some languages multi-paradigm.

> It comes after a long, monochord pattern of sniping.

It's true that I generally post negative critique, and that's because I 
tend to post when things get my dander up enough. That doesn't mean the 
message is frivolous or wrong. If I wanted to snipe like that I'd be 
posting here several times a week on multiple topics. I don't.