Too focused on C++ programmers?

[qznc]

On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 20:57:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:27:03PM +0100, qznc wrote:
>> I read an interesting article [0] with a weird title. It got me
>> thinking about Ds marketing [1]. Are we too focused on the C++
>> programmers? Most of them are very unlikely to switch. In
>> comparison, D should be much easier to sell to people, who are
>> already considering Go/Scala/Clojure/Node.js/etc. I 
>> restructured [2]
>> the tutorial to target them more specifically.
>> 
>> [0] 
>> http://braythwayt.com/2013/11/27/herd-thither-me-hither.html#revised
>> [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6814922
>> [2] http://qznc.github.io/d-tut/basics.html
>
> Under the section "For Go Programmers", the wording of the 2nd 
> paragraph
> is a bit unfortunate:
>
> 	Why would you prefer D? D supports generic programming, which
> 	means less code and type safety. ...
> 	      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> That could be misinterpreted to mean "less code and less type 
> safety".
> (I know it sounds silly, but you never know... first 
> impressions can
> mean a lot to a newcomer.) Maybe a better wording might be:
>
> 	"... less code and better type safety." ?

I believe I had written "better" at some point, but was not happy 
with it.
How can type safety be "better"? Type safety is binary. A type 
cannot be 50% safe. I changed it to "more type safety", in the 
sense that you need less casts.  Short form of "more pervasive 
type safety". More suggestions welcome.

Thanks for the feedback :)