Some feedback on the website.

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 12/16/2015 5:50 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/16/15 3:00 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2015-12-16 02:15, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> It seems knowing ddoc is part of knowing D. -- Andrei
>>
>> I'm wondering how you can think it's perfectly acceptable to invent our
>> own (crappy) language for documentation and at the same time loudly
>> complain that SDLang is use for Dub config files and not a (more widely)
>> standardized format.
>
> What standardized format was dominant in 2001? Thanks! -- Andrei
>

To be fair, Ddoc came along later.

But Jacob has a good point. I looked at 2 other systems in common use at the 
time - Javadoc, which I thought was aesthetically ugly, and Doxygen, which is 
aesthetically ugly and way overly complex, as well as being C++ specific.

I wanted a system that looked good even without processing, i.e. it looked good 
in the the source code for basic use. Javadoc, Doxygen, both failed at that.

Ddoc looks good in its basic use, is ridiculously simple, and has proven 
powerful enough to generate html, pdf, Latex, and Kindle ebook results from the 
same source.

Ddoc has its shortcomings, too, like unittest. But it has achieved its goal, 
like unittest, which is to be so easy to use and built in that it it becomes 
completely natural to use it.

I regard unittest and Ddoc as being extremely successful in that they have 
transformed D programming. (This is true of Javadoc as well, but not for Doxygen.)

BTW, I've also used Ddoc to create several ebooks which I've published on 
Amazon, and for all the web sites I've created. It works very nicely for that. I 
don't think Doxygen nor Javadoc is useable in that way. It's kinda weird to run 
a history book through dmd to get an ebook out, but also kinda cool :-)