| > the opposite from practical is general No, it's certainly not at all. Those are completely unrelated spectrums. Something can easily be practical and general, or impractical and specific. > the opposite of efficient can for example be trade off for [...] And if they stated what trade-offs they made, then that paragraph would actually start to say something useful. Unfortunately, they don't. Also, if you're developing documentation for libraries, I really would recommend finding a better source of inspiration. Take Redis, in the very first paragraph: > What this means is that Redis provides access to mutable data structures via a set of commands, which are sent using a server-client model with TCP sockets and a simple protocol. So different processes can query and modify the same data structures in a shared way. That's all you need to do: before anything else, tell the user what the thing does. Then you can give some basic details about implementation: "written in Go", "runs on Linux & macOS", "uses GC, so not suitable for RT applications", etc. After that you can get into trade-offs, real narrow implementation details, setup, handwaving abstract adjectives, etc. But lead with what the hell it actually does. |