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?

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

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.

> 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.

On Monday, 21 December 2015 at 17:52:39 UTC, BLM768 wrote:
> We could use the :hover dropdowns as a fallback for the JS, though. It might not be ideal, but isn't that basically the definition of a fallback?

Yeah, but :hover dropdowns really suck. I'd prefer a fallback link over them when given the choice.

The language reference link list is kinda long and could use an introductory page anyway. (and I don't mean http://dlang.org/spec/intro.html that, I mean a meta-intro that describes what the spec is, how it is laid out, etc. so the reader knows what to expect from it.)

On Monday, 21 December 2015 at 17:37:11 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 10:28 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> The original code is written in HTML, JavaScript and Less (CSS). See
>> repository for build instructions [1]. If I move forward with this I
>> would go with vibe.d. I would prefer Sass for the CSS and CoffeeScript
>> for the JavaScript.
>
> 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.
>
> CoffeeScript sounds like a nice thing to add and is from what I've heard reasonably stable.

IMO we should stay away from trans-plied languages like SCSS, Less, and CoffeeScript, for several reasons

1. Everyone who knows the superset already knows the subset

2. Because of 1, going with the superset unnecessarily limits your contributor base (I don't know and have no urge to learn CoffeeScript for example) for a very small amount of gain

3. The compilers out put ugly, hard to debug code, that also tends to be slower

4. We become dependent on their toolchain.

What if CoffeeScript or SCSS ceases to exist, especially since Babel is now the fad that has replaced CoffeeScript? E.g. Does anyone remember Dart? How many Dart libraries are sitting unmaintained now? We have to think 10 years in the future so we don't end up rewriting a whole bunch of code and I am willing to bet that CoffeeScript will not be maintained in 2020.

>> No. The top menu uses JavaScript and all the collapsible sections
>> depends on JavaScript. I hope it's possible to change so the collapsible
>> sections are expanded by default.
>
> My understanding is this is a sticky point with some, so probably needs fixing before the release.

Yes, sites should degrade gracefully. Not everyone has JavaScript http://kryogenix.org/code/browser/everyonehasjs.html

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

On 12/21/2015 02:43 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> IMO we should stay away from trans-plied languages like SCSS, Less, and
> CoffeeScript, for several reasons
[snip]

That sounds reasonable. -- Andrei

On Saturday, 19 December 2015 at 14:33:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Here's another thread about redesign of dlang.org. I'm creating

I want say that there are also people who most like the current design.

On Monday, 21 December 2015 at 20:44:06 UTC, Dmitry wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 December 2015 at 14:33:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> Here's another thread about redesign of dlang.org. I'm creating
>
> I want say that there are also people who most like the current design.

Why? Reasons?

On Monday, 21 December 2015 at 19:54:45 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 02:43 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>> IMO we should stay away from trans-plied languages like SCSS, Less, and
>> CoffeeScript, for several reasons
> [snip]
>
> That sounds reasonable. -- Andrei

Meanwhile, we could also consider the [U.S. Government's standards] (https://playbook.cio.gov/designstandards/), which do explicitly suggest using SCSS. On the other hand, also explicitly state not to use Bootstrap.

It also recommends a few different m**w js frameworks (like angular), but don't think it mentions coffeescript one way or another iirc. From what I've seen, these standards are actually exceptionally well written.

On Monday, 21 December 2015 at 19:43:35 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> IMO we should stay away from trans-plied languages like SCSS, Less, and CoffeeScript, for several reasons

CoffeeScript is a no-no now that Babel (ES6) is around. But you probably don't need all that since dlang is a pretty simple site where js is only used sparingly. You want to use a minifier though.

SCSS, Less and the like solve CSS problems that only become apparent in big or modular projects. On small stuff you could definitely do without them.

On Monday, 21 December 2015 at 21:20:44 UTC, Bubbasaur wrote:
>> I want say that there are also people who most like the current design.
> Why? Reasons?
Basic things:

Left-side menu. I don't like when site uses only half of screen (is anybody still uses 1280*1024 and 1024*768 displays? Statistic of November says that 5% and 2% of people). New design prepared for 4:3, not for wide-screen displays (1920*1080 - 35%, 1366*768 - 26%, etc).

Good font (Verdana) - I can read it easy, it's comfortable for eyes. New design uses Roboto Slab - it's more compact and reading speed is more slow (yep, my English is bad and it difficult x2 times for me).

I like colors (dark theme) which uses current design.

I like that I can unfold multiple/all menu items, not only one.

Of course, current design are not perfect, but it's more cosy.