Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 6/29/11 9:18 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> James Fisher wrote:
>> I have no experience with DDOC, but TBH I don't intend to ever have any.
>
> The beauty of ddoc is you don't need experience with it.
>
> /**
>        this is ddoc
>
>        yes just this
> */
>
>
> My biggest criticism of it is trivial to fix, but I haven't found
> the time yet.
>
> That is, the std.ddoc that is used to build the main site outputs
> presentational html instead of semantic html.
>
>
> Just going through that and changing to more semantic tags - so
> the automatically generated data from the ddoc back end is not lost
> by the time it gets to html - would make a big difference.
>
>
> Then you can more easily apply css or other xml transformations
> to it.

Yah, agreed. I've done some work on that in the past; ideally each 
construct would generate a div/span with its own class and then 
everything would be controlled by CSSs.

> Also as another note, the web pages really *aren't* written in
> ddoc. Take a look at std.ddoc some day... it has plain HTML
> for the main page structure.
>
> If the content tags were more semantic, between css and that
> plain html structure, boom, there's the stuff to attack for the web.
> No need to think about ddoc at all.

I agree. It's a bit difficult for me to understand all the fuss. 
Arguments regarding learning of ddoc literally take longer to type than 
to obviate by learning. BTW, if anyone wants to contribute to the site, 
usage of html is not a barrier.


Andrei