dlang.org redesign -- the state of documentation and learning resources [part 2]

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 06:30:04PM +0000, aldanor via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 23 January 2015 at 18:17:30 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >I vote for ddoc / static generation. The site itself is static
> >anyway, using client-side JS to do this seems to be overkill.
>
> You need both. What I meant was that DDOC has to be able to generate
> an index (one huge dict) and store that in a text file/json. The
> client-side would just use that "database" to provide on-site
> incremental search. Quite easy.

I wouldn't mind just generating a static index and putting it on an
index page somewhere. I'm not against using JS for stuff like this, but
generally I prefer static navigation. (But that's just me. I know I'm in
the minority. :-P)


[...]
> Thanks for clarifying. I too hope this thread doesn't just become
> another bikeshedding timesink :) I'll get some style-related drafts
> published on the weekend and then we'll see how it goes from there.
> Indeed, I won't mind to "spearhead" this (if I knew how!)

It's not that hard. Just start submitting PRs and pointing people to it.
Make enough noise about it and people are bound to notice. If your idea
has any merit (and I think it does) people should follow suit.


> since the whole documentation story is very sad, provides D with
> negative publicity and provides users like us with constant annoyance
> (but...  it can be fixed -- we all know it).

Of course it can be fixed -- what *can't* programmers fix? (Besides the
halting problem, that is. :-P) It's just a matter of someone stepping up
to the plate and actually *doing* something about it.

Besides, Andrei has even offered to write the content -- you have
preapproval even before you ask for it! If I were you, I'd charge full
steam ahead!


T

-- 
The easy way is the wrong way, and the hard way is the stupid way. Pick one.