docs(FAQ): updates readme with slight changes to FAQ

README.md

@@ -70,33 +70,23 @@ First, let me say that these comparisons are highly subjective, and not meant in
 
 #### How does `clap` compare to [getopts](https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/getopts)?
 
-`getopts` is a very basic, fairly minimalist argument parsing library. This isn't a bad thing, sometimes you don't need tons of features, you just want to parse some simple arguments, and have some help text generated for you based on valid arguments you specify. When using `getopts` you must manually implement most of the common features (such as checking to display help messages, usage strings, etc.). If you want a highly custom argument parser, and don't mind writing most the argument parser yourself, `getopts` is an excellent base.
+`getopts` is a very basic, fairly minimalist argument parsing library. This isn't a bad thing, sometimes you don't need tons of features, you just want to parse some simple arguments, and have some help text generated for you based on valid arguments you specify. The downside to this approach is that you must manually implement most of the common features (such as checking to display help messages, usage strings, etc.). If you want a highly custom argument parser, and don't mind writing the majority of the functionality yourself, `getopts` is an excellent base.
 
-Due to it's lack of features, `getopts` also doesn't allocate much, or at all. This gives it somewhat of a performance boost. Although, as you start implementing those features you need manually, that boost quickly disappears.
+`getopts` also doesn't allocate much, or at all. This gives it somewhat of a performance boost. Although, as you start implementing additional features, that boost quickly disappears.
 
 Personally, I find many, many people that use `getopts` are manually implementing features that `clap` has by default. Using `clap` simplifies your codebase allowing you to focus on your application, and not argument parsing.
 
-Reasons to use `getopts` instead of `clap`
-
- * You need a few allocations as possible, don't plan on implementing any additional features
- * You want a highly custom argument parser, but want to use an established parser as a base
-
 #### How does `clap` compare to [docopt.rs](https://github.com/docopt/docopt.rs)?
 
-I first want to say I'm a big a fan of BurntSushi's work, the creator of `Docopt.rs`. I aspire to produce the quality of libraries that this man does! When it comes to comparing these two libraries they are very different. `docopt` tasks you with writing a help message, and then it parsers that message for you to determine all valid arguments and their use. Some people LOVE this, others not so much. If you're willing to write a detailed help message, it's nice that you can stick that in your program and have `docopt` do the rest. On the downside, it's somewhat less flexible than other options out there, and requires the help message change if you need to make changes.
-
-`docopt` is also excellent at translating arguments into Rust types automatically. There is even a syntax extension which will do all this for you, if you're willing to use a nightly compiler (use of a stable compiler requires you to manually translate from arguments to Rust types). To use BurntSushi's words, `docopt` is also somewhat of a black box. You get what you get, and it's hard to tweak implementation or customise your experience for your use case.
+I first want to say I'm a big a fan of BurntSushi's work, the creator of `Docopt.rs`. I aspire to produce the quality of libraries that this man does! When it comes to comparing these two libraries they are very different. `docopt` tasks you with writing a help message, and then it parsers that message for you to determine all valid arguments and their use. Some people LOVE this approach, others not so much. If you're willing to write a detailed help message, it's nice that you can stick that in your program and have `docopt` do the rest. On the downside, it's somewhat less flexible, and requires you to change the help message if you need to make changes.
 
-Because `docopt` is doing a ton of work to parse your help messages and determine what you were trying to communicate as valid arguments, it's also one of the more heavy weight parsers performance-wise. For most applications this isn't a concern, but it's something to keep in mind.
+`docopt` is also excellent at translating arguments into Rust types automatically. There is even a syntax extension which will do all this for you, if you're willing to use a nightly compiler (use of a stable compiler requires you to somewhat manually translate from arguments to Rust types). To use BurntSushi's words, `docopt` is also a sort of black box. You get what you get, and it's hard to tweak implementation or customise the experience for your use case.
 
-Reasons to use `docopt` instead of `clap`
- * You want automatic translation from arguments to Rust types, and are using a nightly compiler
- * Performance isn't a concern
- * You don't have any complex relationships between arguments
+Because `docopt` is doing a ton of work to parse your help messages and determine what you were trying to communicate as valid arguments, it's also one of the more heavy weight parsers performance-wise. For most applications this isn't a concern and this isn't to say `docopt` is slow, in fact from it. This is just something to keep in mind while comparing.
 
 #### All else being equal, what are some reasons to use `clap`?
 
-`clap` is fast, and as lightweight as possible while still giving all the features you'd expect from a modern argument parser. If you use `clap` when just need some simple arguments parsed, you'll find it a walk in the park. But `clap` also makes it possible to represent extremely complex, and advanced requirements, without too much thought. `clap` aims to be intuitive, easy to use, and fully capable for wide variety use cases and needs.
+`clap` is as fast, and as lightweight as possible while still giving all the features you'd expect from a modern argument parser. In fact, for the amount and type of features `clap` offers the fact it remains about as fast as `getopts` is great. If you use `clap` when just need some simple arguments parsed, you'll find it a walk in the park. But `clap` also makes it possible to represent extremely complex, and advanced requirements, without too much thought. `clap` aims to be intuitive, easy to use, and fully capable for wide variety use cases and needs.
 
 ## Features