Andrei's Google Talk

[Yao G.]

You are just becoming a parody of yourself.

Keep trying, though.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:06:04 -0500, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:

> Sat, 07 Aug 2010 16:54:03 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
>> On 2010-08-07 00:54, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Don wrote:
>>>> The reason they're the same is that the docs were originally written
>>>> in html. The original conversion to ddoc was done via search and
>>>> replace. One of the HUGE benefits of ddoc is that it does highlighting
>>>> of the D code. That instantly saved Walter a lot of time. Seriously,
>>>> converting it to ddoc did improve productivity.
>>>
>>> Here's what it has done, and this is real live experience because they
>>> were originally 100% html:
>>>
>>> 1. Yes, Don is right. It has improved ENORMOUSLY the productivity in
>>> those documents. I'm talking doubling or even tripling it.
>>>
>>> 2. I can comment out sections with $(COMMENT blah blah) and have them
>>> elided from the output. HTML comments remain in the output.
>>>
>>> 3. It has enabled the site to be written in correct, conforming HTML.
>>> Previously, it was a mess, and I didn't know what was wrong with it
>>> because it rendered ok anyway.
>>>
>>> 4. HTML has zero provision for conditional compilation. Want two HTML
>>> pages from the same source? Write two HTML pages. Note that the D1 and
>>> D2 docs are generated from the same source, this makes it easy to
>>> determine what's different between them.
>>>
>>> 5. It enabled me to produce a common look & feel for the whole site,
>>> which is hundreds of pages. This was just impossible before.
>>>
>>> 6. Even better, I can *change* the look and feel of the site with just
>>> editting a handful of macros.
>>>
>>> 7. I can update URLs across the site trivially, such as if bugzilla
>>> changes its URL.
>>>
>>> 8. As Don mentioned, it will automagically syntax highlight D code.
>>>
>>> 9. Grep doesn't work well with HTML tags. You really need an HTML-aware
>>> editor. Ddoc works with any editor (all you really need is a
>>> parentheses matcher).
>>>
>>> 10. HTML is a visually butt-ugly format that makes my eyes bleed pus.
>>> Very hard to read.
>>
>> I think for any serious HTML work you need a server side language to
>> help you.
>
> Comparing hand-written html to ddoc is a bit unfair. I've used several
> CMS and template systems. They even have good support for D. My
> experiences tell me that
>
> 1. ddoc has worse productivity than real document generators such as
> doxygen or good cms/markup/web template systems.
>
> 2. these other systems also support commenting out stuff
>
> 3. these other systems also support generating correct, conforming HTML/
> XML/TeX/PDF/MAN/whatever. With ddoc you need to use some semi-official
> templates you need to dig from the newsgroup archives. Doxygen provides
> all this by default. How is that bad for productivity?
>
> 4. these other systems also support conditional compilation
>
> 5-6. these other systems also support separating the style/layout from
> the structure.
>
> 7. ditto (and it's better than what ddoc produces by default)
>
> 8. ditto (and it's better than what ddoc produces). ddoc doesn't extract
> all components of symbol signatures in a structured way.
>
> 9. ditto
>
> 10. the other systems look better than ddoc
>
> So overall the other systems are much better and I also think I could
> write something 10 times better than ddoc in 2..7 days if someone would
> give me an untainted GPL licensed frontend that didn't look so butt ugly.


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/