Redesign of dlang.org

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 12/21/2015 01:04 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 21 December 2015 at 17:37:11 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> That's a large leap. I suggest using Ddoc instead of Sass compact CSS
>> files, see the existing instance at
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/blob/master/css/cssmenu.css.dd.
>>
>
> Why is there a $(COLON) macro in there? Is it because of the silly
> section feature of ddoc? Why does it matter at the bottom of the file
> but not in the rest of it?

Yeah, that was the reason. I don't remember the specifics.

> Using text macros in CSS is something I support. Indeed, my css expander
> does them too, but most of ddoc's other features I fear are wrong like
> the colon thing, and it lacks stuff that is specifically useful in css
> itself like nested selectors.

Yah, there's always pressure on using the more specialized tool against 
the general one. I wouldn't sell ddoc for css as a product, but for what 
we need here is perfectly appropriate.

The section-with-a-colon thing is something we should probably not do at 
all when compiling .dd files. Keep it for code documentation only.

> (BTW, your _=\n\n pattern is useless, it
> changes nothing and should be removed.)

You must be right, either I was wrong all along or things have changed 
since. Please submit a tested PR?

> While I do like using css helper programs... here, I'd prefer to just
> keep the file simple. Let's just write standard CSS, understanding that
> it has a few warts, but then getting the benefit of a very easy to
> understand file for anyone to look at, no need to build it, and the
> possibility of using standard css tools on it.

Sounds reasonable.

>> CoffeeScript sounds like a nice thing to add and is from what I've
>> heard reasonably stable.
>
> Please don't. Coffeescript has distinctly negative value to me,
> including complicating the build process even more, and just being a
> PITA to write.
>
> Again, I'd prefer to keep the javascript files simple too, no processors
> on them. It's not like we need that much of it on this site anyway.

Nice, too.


Andrei