Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

[Adam Richardson]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com>wrote:

> On 6/29/2011 4:03 AM, Adam Richardson wrote:
>
>> I'll admit that I looked through to see what I could help out with on the
>> website, but ddoc stopped me in my tracks.
>>
>
> How did it stop you?


I'm a web developer by trade, and ddoc, while nice for generating
documentation, is not as nice (relatively speaking) for managing a website.
I'd rather bring in elements of ddoc into an html site rather than try to
bring in the appropriate html into ddocs (that's not to say that D wouldn't
handle templating for the site, just that the site wouldn't be built on top
of ddoc.)

For example:

   1. Use simple templating system written in D for site.
   2. Pages within templating system are built using HTML, CSS, Javascript.
   3. DDoc material that's pulled from D source is dynamically brought in to
   the pages in the site using the templating system.

DDoc would be used, but not as the foundation for the site.



>  it's just not built for web site development.
>>
>
> Anything you can do in HTML, you can do in Ddoc.


This is true. That said, what does the "Anything you can do in X, you can do
in Y" prove regarding the efficacy of using ddoc as the primary tool for
managing the website?

For example, anything I can do in D I can also do in C (or assembly), but I
prefer not to use C merely because I can. I prefer to use D because you've
carefully crafted a systems programming language that provides many of the
functional programming features I value,  whilst maintaining succinct, clear
syntax that affords great parsimony.

For the same reason, I would prefer not to manage a website using DDoc, but
rather use tools that are crafted specifically for the job and then augment
those tools with DDoc.

Adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20110629/68c6727c/attachment.html>