Why I'm hesitating to switch to D

[KennyTM~]

On Jun 30, 11 18:50, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/30/2011 1:26 AM, KennyTM~ wrote:
>> Yes it is supported by Sphinx with the :ref:`target` syntax.
>
> Take a look at this:
>
> http://sphinx.pocoo.org/rest.html#tables
>
> +------------------------+------------+----------+----------+
> | Header row, column 1 | Header 2 | Header 3 | Header 4 |
> | (header rows optional) | | | |
> +========================+============+==========+==========+
> | body row 1, column 1 | column 2 | column 3 | column 4 |
> +------------------------+------------+----------+----------+
> | body row 2 | ... | ... | |
> +------------------------+------------+----------+----------+
>
>
> I originally did think about doing this for tables in Ddoc. But although
> it looks reasonable, it is unbearably tedious to actually have to type
> in a complex table like this, and even worse to try and change such a
> table. Have you ever tried it? I have. Awful.
>
> Try writing 50 different tables that way.
>
>

Right. I agree this is one disadvantage in authoring the document. 
Although, in terms of readability, this is much better than

$(TABLE
	$(TR
		$(TH Header)
		$(TH Header2)
	)
	$(TR
		$(TD Body1)
		...
	)
	...
)

>
> Next, look at:
>
> http://sphinx.pocoo.org/rest.html#sections
>
> •# with overline, for parts
> •* with overline, for chapters
> •=, for sections
> •-, for subsections
> •^, for subsubsections
> •", for paragraphs
>
> I challenge anyone to remember this table. Heck, I can't even remember
> the C operator precedence table 100%.
>
>

That's incorrect. Please read the paragraph above it.

     Normally, there are no heading levels assigned to certain
     characters as the structure is determined from the succession of
     headings. However, for the Python documentation, this *convention*
     is used which you may follow:

>
> And:
>
> http://sphinx.pocoo.org/rest.html#external-links
>
> .. _a link: http://example.com/
>
> is that really better than:
>
> $(LINK2 http://example.com/, a link)
>
> ?
>

Some people may think it is, I don't, but you could write it as

     `a link <http://example.com/>`_

>
>
> Sphinx is a large and complex markup system that is arguably as much to
> learn as HTML is - and I still need to learn HTML. Everything in Sphinx
> seems to have a special syntax, while Ddoc has a single syntax.
>
> Sphinx has some nice things, like the automatic connecting of links. But
> I don't find it, on the whole, better. Granted, I haven't actually used
> it and might think differently if I did. If Sphinx was the industry
> standard that everyone uses, that might make it compelling in spite of
> its problems. But it isn't, I'd never heard of it before your links. (Of
> course, that might just mean I'm living under a rock!)
>
> I've seen all kinds of markup languages, starting with runoff in the
> 70s. I'm modestly familiar with runoff (did a term paper with it! that
> was the end of my typewriter), unix man, mediawiki, other wiki markups,
> reddit markup, javadoc, doxygen, Latex, html (of course), the crazy
> formats used in various web forums, etc.