Looks interesting but here's what I don't understand. So many programming languages do not show example code on the homepage. That's like if Mazda didn't show cars on their homepage. Sure, you won't really know what it's like to drive it without getting your hands dirty but at least let me see the trim.
For starters, the first "test" was bogus: grantparent said "front page", but parent tried the naked domain (which Mazda doesn't intent to be the front page).
Do you work for Mazda, or else how do you know? Is this intent published on the real site somewhere, which is what the user is trying to find in the first place when they try mazda.com?
Maybe this is just some webmaster that needs to have their ass fired.
Trying "mazda.com" for Mazda is the obvious thing for a user to do. I just tried half a dozen multinational corporations that are associated with well-known consumer brands, they all have a page at <name>.com or redirect to one. It is not in any way "bogus" to try that.
The mazda.com page doesn't even provide a clue as to where the expected site actually is; that's what is "bogus". For a second I was wondering whether Mazda actually own the domain, or is that someone squatting (yet using a Mazda logo favicon).
Not to have a page there which redirects the user to the real one, and just a permission error, comes across as astonishingly unprofessional, especially for a company of the proportions of Mazda. (If it was Uncle Bob's Pizza down the street, I might not think so as much.)
There's this thing called common sense. Either they have a broken "naked domain" homepage for months and they didn't notice, or their homepage is www.mazda.com.
>Trying "mazda.com" for Mazda is the obvious thing for a user to do.
OK, fine, whatever.
>Not to have a page there which redirects the user to the real one, and just a permission error, comes across as astonishingly unprofessional
Which is neither here, nor there, to the actual question of this subthread: whether they have cars on their homepage.
That they have the naked domain not redirect to www, doesn't mean their homepage is that and not the one they actually present, fill-in, and treat as such.
> Trying "mazda.com" for Mazda is the obvious thing for a user to do.
That used to be the case, but I would argue strongly that it is no longer. Now the obvious and normal thing to do is type "Mazda" into a search engine. In the USA, mazdausa.com is the top hit. (And Wikipedia is second.)
I don't get your point. Plenty of sites have `www` (though most will forward to it from the non-`www` version. A company's homepage isn't defined as their first-level subdomain. On top of that, many companies have different homepages. Some are for their products, some are for their company.
The corporate and product sites you are talking about firstly (1) exist and (2) link to each other. "Hey, this is our corporate site; if you're looking for products, click here."
Can you find another company that has the same revenue figures as Mazda (multi-billion dollars), and that is a widely recognized consumer brand, which has a broken web page at their root domain that doesn't redirect or link to anything, or even greet the user in any way?
I'm not sure. If we're talking about turing complete languages, aside from performace, you can get all kinds of features in all kinds of languages. It's actually a matter of how expressive, safe, idiomatic and well designed they are for everyday usage.
When discussing a language which is defined by caching values, we sure do want to see how that looks like in practice.
I can only speak for myself, but this kind of abstract listing of features is absolutely meaningless to me. Why would I want to use it instead of others, how do the unique features make a difference at solving a frequent problem? After reading the page I know Skip does something with caching, but I still have no clue what difference it actually makes in a program.
In my opinion a programming language landing page without code example is like a game's Steam store page without screenshots - it's cool to know it's a "fast-paced racing game" but that could apply to everything between Tux Racer and Gran Turismo.
TypeScript's website shows right at the top in a few lines how it makes an easy mistake in JS impossible. Zig's site has a nice example that gives you an idea of some added features, how it differs from C but still feels similar.
Rust's website had an editable and runnable code snippet showing iterators and pattern matching (although for some reason they later replaced it with the phrase "blazingly fast" in the redesign).
> Just click "learn more" button and you'll see step by step examples of the language features.
I got bored after about 5 pages, everything presented there is the same as in any other language. I want to see what differentiates this language from others, not what's the same.
That is what a landing page of any new language must accomplish - sell the reader on the power of your unique features as fast as possible.
what's worse, even if you click on "more info" it goes to a tutorial that teaches you from zero. But I'm more eager to know killer features in this language.
