Too focused on C++ programmers?

[Craig Dillabaugh]

On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 22:36:59 UTC, qznc wrote:
> 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

clip

>>
>> 	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 :)

perhaps try " ...generic programming, which gives you type safety 
with less code." or some variation on that.