Some feedback on the website.

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 12/15/2015 12:31 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> We've all said time and time again if ddoc wasn't used for the entire site more
> people would help with it. Ddoc makes sense for the documentation but not
> everything else.

I'm not so sure. There are lots of tools to develop websites. Let's say A, B, 
and C. If we picked "B", we most assuredly would have analogous threads here 
saying "I won't use anything but A" and "Everybody else uses C."


 > more people would help with it.

I've heard all sorts of excuses for decades about why people won't chip in, and 
I know they are excuses because when the excuse is fixed, they still won't chip 
in. This excuse sounds the same as the rest.

The thing is, if you know html, then you know Ddoc. Ddoc is just a stupidly 
simple text-substitution macro system a programmer should be able to learn in a 
few minutes.

I do agree that the macros defined in the site's .ddoc files are ridiculously 
overlapping, redundant, etc. That all could use a redesign and an overhaul, but 
that isn't Ddoc's fault. It's just like any piece of crap code that has suffered 
from too many quick&dirty hacks layered on to it.