On 6/11/16 5:16 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 17:33:01 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I should add that it would be valuable to keep the ddoc build as well.
>
> We need DDoc anyway for the website itself, as well as formats other
> than the website (e.g. CHM and HTML files distributed with the
> compiler), so it's not going away.

I mean ddoc for the standard library code. -- Andrei

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 08:48:53 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 6/11/16 5:16 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> > On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 17:33:01 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> I should add that it would be valuable to keep the ddoc build as well.
> >
> > We need DDoc anyway for the website itself, as well as formats other than the website (e.g. CHM and HTML files distributed with the compiler), so it's not going away.
>
> I mean ddoc for the standard library code. -- Andrei

I'm fine with generating the docs with ddox if that works better, but I sure hope that we're not going to then change how we're doing the actual documenattion in the source files except that if ddox is smart enough that we don't need many of the linking macros, then I could see getting rid of some of those from the docs.

I expect to be able to use version(StdDdoc) and all that and have it do the right thing with ddox, or the switch to ddox is going to be very annoying from the standpoint of maintaining the code. However, I would assume that that's all already been sorted out, since we've been generating the docs with ddox alongside the normal documentation for some time now.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 08:45:08 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 6/10/16 5:46 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > On 6/10/16 1:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> On 6/10/16 3:17 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> >>> I'd want to disable or replace discourse before we make it our official documentation. We could easily self-host some commenting functionality if deemed necessary, but adding an unmaintained communication channel isn't the best idea IMO.
> >>
> >> I'm a bit bummed about that. I like it. Is my understanding incorrect that disqus is fairly established by now? I see it on a bunch of legit sites, and it seems to add value to those as it could add to ours.
> >
> > I can see a good reason to have a disqus forum for each page, as I have found tremendous value from the php.net forums on each symbol (with common tricks to use with the given function).
> >
> > But the problem is, people will ask questions on these forums, and likely will not get answers.
>
> Why not? -- Andrei

Are _you_ going to spend time going through every single page in the documentation, looking to see whether someone asked a question and then reply to them if they did? I'm sure not doing that, and I doubt that many of us will be. I, for one, rarely even look at the online documentation. I usually just look at the source code locally. And even if I did look at the online docs on a regular basis, I'd only see comments on the symbols that I happened to be looking up, and even then, only if I took the extra time to look and see whether there were comments. I sure wouldn't be going to the docs just to see whether someone asked a question - especially when there so many pages to search through.

I really don't see how it's tractable to have hundreds (if not thousands) of pages on dlang.org where someone could ask a question. They will occasionally get an answer, but it's more likely to be from someone else who doesn't know much than it is from anyone who could give a good answer, since the folks who are most likely to give good answers won't even be looking. What's far more likely is that folks will get frustrated, because they asked a question on the documentation page for a symbol and never got an answer - or if they did, it was weeks or months later.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 06/10/2016 07:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I'm a bit bummed about that. I like it. Is my understanding incorrect that disqus is fairly established by now?

You need to create an account with a pay-by-data company to even post something.

On 06/11/2016 03:02 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On 06/10/2016 07:33 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I'm a bit bummed about that. I like it. Is my understanding incorrect that disqus is fairly established by now?
> 
> You need to create an account with a pay-by-data company to even post something.

I'm mostly out at either of those steps.
Adding some simple comments, really doesn't require so much fanciness,
e.g. this
https://code.dawg.eu/reducing-vibed-turnaround-time-part-1-faster-linking.html
runs on a simple sqlite db (https://github.com/posativ/isso).

On 06/11/2016 02:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> > > But the problem is, people will ask questions on these forums, and likely will not get answers.
>> >
>> > Why not? -- Andrei
> Are _you_ going to spend time going through every single page in the documentation, looking to see whether someone asked a question and then reply to them if they did?

There is obviously an overview page https://disqus.com/home/forums/vibe-d/, but I doubt that we'll actively administrate it.

Also look at ruby-doc, there is literally zero traffic on the comments. https://disqus.com/home/forum/ruby-doc/.

Maybe it doesn't hurt much and might help to gather good ideas for some entities.

On 06/11/2016 02:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I'm fine with generating the docs with ddox if that works better, but I sure hope that we're not going to then change how we're doing the actual documenattion in the source files except that if ddox is smart enough that we don't need many of the linking macros, then I could see getting rid of some of those from the docs.
> 
> I expect to be able to use version(StdDdoc) and all that and have it do the right thing with ddox, or the switch to ddox is going to be very annoying from the standpoint of maintaining the code. However, I would assume that that's all already been sorted out, since we've been generating the docs with ddox alongside the normal documentation for some time now.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

It already does all of that (uses dmd's json output atm.), and of course
has a ddoc macro interpreter built-in (emulating all of it's quirks).

On Saturday, 11 June 2016 at 12:31:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I really don't see how it's tractable to have hundreds (if not thousands) of pages on dlang.org where someone could ask a question.

Wouldn't that be solved by automatically posting the question to Learn with a link?

On 6/11/16 12:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Are_you_  going to spend time going through every single page in the
> documentation, looking to see whether someone asked a question and then
> reply to them if they did?

I get notified by disqus for new posts. The basic idea is if we don't prime it we'll never have it. -- Andrei

On Saturday, 11 June 2016 at 19:20:56 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/11/16 12:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Are_you_  going to spend time going through every single page in the
>> documentation, looking to see whether someone asked a question and then
>> reply to them if they did?
>
> I get notified by disqus for new posts. The basic idea is if we don't prime it we'll never have it. -- Andrei

I think it wouldn't be too hard to embed DFeed as a comment system. What do you think? Then anyone can subscribe to new comments through the usual means. The same solution can be applied to the blog.

I understand that the current bottleneck is someone adding new groups to the NNTP server. Can that be resolved?