View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
December 10, 2012
Re: dlang.org Library Reference
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:57:43 -0800
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:58:30PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:45:06 -0800
> > "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 'cos you're running with JS turned off. :-)
> > > 
> > 
> > <g>
> > 
> > It makes the web 10x faster, 10x more practical and 10x less
> > obnoxious - it's the "Make the web instantly better" checkbox ;)
> > It's almost magical!
> 
> Heh. I used to browse with no JS. But due to the annoying bandwagon
> jumping trend that is a common pathology in people involved with
> computers,

Very well-put :) I've long been convinced that most people in computers
should be exiled from the industry and sent to the fashion industry
instead, because clearly that's where they truly belong. Too damn many
fashion-folk in computing these days.

> more and more websites are starting to depend on JS and are
> mostly (or completely) dysfunctional without JS. So I grudgingly
> turned it back on.
> 

Usually if something doesn't work without JS, or on FF2, then I decide
that it isn't worth my attention anyway (and it usually isn't) and I
leave. In the rare cases when I do unfortunately need to use the site
(ex: BitBucket and GitHub), then I suffer through Opera 10 (the last
version of Opera, and indeed the last major web browser period, to
support a vaguely-native skin).

On a related note, Chrome will never touch my computer.

> Mind you, though, what with browser bloat and JS memory hogging
> plaguing my browsing experience recently, I've tentatively switched
> back to no JS by default, and enable only on a per-site basis (Opera
> is good for that kinda thing).

FF's NoScript plug-in is fantastic for that.

> > Looking at it with JS on, yea, I see what you mean now. Not so nice,
> > not so helpful, and definitely not worth the rendering lag. The
> > new-style baked-in summaries on pages like std.algorithm are much,
> > much better.
> 
> I would go so far as to propose that we get rid of those unhelpful
> link blobs completely. They make the page slow to load, and for no
> real benefit. Sounds like a lose-lose proposition to me.

vote++
December 10, 2012
Re: dlang.org Library Reference
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:54:52 +0100
"Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 03:18:30 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
> > On 12/09/2012 08:10 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> >
> > The whole process only takes 5-7 seconds here.
> 
> "Only" is not the right word to use here.

Yea, there's nothing about that page that has any reason whatsoever
to take 5-7 seconds on even 10-year-old hardware, let alone on anything
more common. I had a 500*MHz* in the late 90's that could render a
nice-looking HTML page the same size faster than that. There's no
justification here.
December 10, 2012
Re: dlang.org Library Reference
On 12/10/2012 04:20 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:54:52 +0100
> "Peter Alexander"<peter.alexander.au@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 03:18:30 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2012 08:10 PM, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>>>
>>> The whole process only takes 5-7 seconds here.
>>
>> "Only" is not the right word to use here.
>
> Yea, there's nothing about that page that has any reason whatsoever
> to take 5-7 seconds on even 10-year-old hardware, let alone on anything
> more common. I had a 500*MHz* in the late 90's that could render a
> nice-looking HTML page the same size faster than that. There's no
> justification here.
>

I've had dail-up, I've had satelite internet.
"Only" is indeed the appropriate word to use.
December 10, 2012
Re: dlang.org Library Reference
On 12/10/2012 05:16 AM, Mr. Anonymous wrote:
> On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 02:10:43 UTC, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>> Is anyone else noticing e.g. std.datetime taking upwards of 30 seconds
>> to render the blob of links at the top? It's freakin freezing my
>> entire browser.
>
> ddox* on dlang.org, anyone?
> http://vibed.org/temp/phobos/index.html
>
> * https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox

Man, how did I miss that?  I like that.
December 11, 2012
Re: dlang.org Library Reference
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 04:54:43PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:57:43 -0800
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
[...]
> > Heh. I used to browse with no JS. But due to the annoying bandwagon
> > jumping trend that is a common pathology in people involved with
> > computers,
> 
> Very well-put :) I've long been convinced that most people in
> computers should be exiled from the industry and sent to the fashion
> industry instead, because clearly that's where they truly belong. Too
> damn many fashion-folk in computing these days.
> 
> > more and more websites are starting to depend on JS and are mostly
> > (or completely) dysfunctional without JS. So I grudgingly turned it
> > back on.
> > 
> 
> Usually if something doesn't work without JS, or on FF2, then I decide
> that it isn't worth my attention anyway (and it usually isn't) and I
> leave. In the rare cases when I do unfortunately need to use the site
> (ex: BitBucket and GitHub), then I suffer through Opera 10 (the last
> version of Opera, and indeed the last major web browser period, to
> support a vaguely-native skin).
[...]

I don't have a problem with websites that use JS *when it's needed*, and
*to the extent it's needed*. The problem is, many sites use JS
needlessly.  And sites that do need JS use it *relentlessly*, beyond
necessity. Just because they need JS for *some* particular feature, they
decide to go all-out and use JS for *everything*, making things that
don't technically need JS, not work without it. Worse, some use JS
maliciously, like to repeatedly load an ad-related link in the
background to spam their click through count (or whatever it is these
days that people are obsessed with). Or soak up memory like water for no
apparent purpose, just because they can.


T

-- 
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by
definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan
December 11, 2012
Re: dlang.org Library Reference
On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 22:33:49 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 05:16 AM, Mr. Anonymous wrote:
>> On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 02:10:43 UTC, Ellery Newcomer 
>> wrote:
>>> Is anyone else noticing e.g. std.datetime taking upwards of 
>>> 30 seconds
>>> to render the blob of links at the top? It's freakin freezing 
>>> my
>>> entire browser.
>>
>> ddox* on dlang.org, anyone?
>> http://vibed.org/temp/phobos/index.html
>>
>> * https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox
>
> Man, how did I miss that?  I like that.

http://vibed.org/temp/phobos/std/datetime.html

Wow, that's a HUGE improvement to what has been a very difficult 
read for std.datetime.

I'd like to bookmark the Vibe Phobos reference page for use as my 
library reference. Will it remain there at least until the 
official web page reference is improved in a similar or identical 
way?

--rt
December 11, 2012
Re: dlang.org Library Reference
On 12/11/12 3:54 PM, Rob T wrote:
> On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 22:33:49 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
>> On 12/10/2012 05:16 AM, Mr. Anonymous wrote:
>>> On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 02:10:43 UTC, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>>>> Is anyone else noticing e.g. std.datetime taking upwards of 30 seconds
>>>> to render the blob of links at the top? It's freakin freezing my
>>>> entire browser.
>>>
>>> ddox* on dlang.org, anyone?
>>> http://vibed.org/temp/phobos/index.html
>>>
>>> * https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox
>>
>> Man, how did I miss that? I like that.
>
> http://vibed.org/temp/phobos/std/datetime.html
>
> Wow, that's a HUGE improvement to what has been a very difficult read
> for std.datetime.
>
> I'd like to bookmark the Vibe Phobos reference page for use as my
> library reference. Will it remain there at least until the official web
> page reference is improved in a similar or identical way?

Do whom do we talk about Borging the vibe dox into dlang.org?

Andrei
December 11, 2012
Re: dlang.org Library Reference
On Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 21:13:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 12/11/12 3:54 PM, Rob T wrote:
>> On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 22:33:49 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2012 05:16 AM, Mr. Anonymous wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 02:10:43 UTC, Ellery Newcomer 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Is anyone else noticing e.g. std.datetime taking upwards of 
>>>>> 30 seconds
>>>>> to render the blob of links at the top? It's freakin 
>>>>> freezing my
>>>>> entire browser.
>>>>
>>>> ddox* on dlang.org, anyone?
>>>> http://vibed.org/temp/phobos/index.html
>>>>
>>>> * https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox
>>>
>>> Man, how did I miss that? I like that.
>>
>> http://vibed.org/temp/phobos/std/datetime.html
>>
>> Wow, that's a HUGE improvement to what has been a very 
>> difficult read
>> for std.datetime.
>>
>> I'd like to bookmark the Vibe Phobos reference page for use as 
>> my
>> library reference. Will it remain there at least until the 
>> official web
>> page reference is improved in a similar or identical way?
>
> Do whom do we talk about Borging the vibe dox into dlang.org?
>
> Andrei

Soenke Ludwig, or ask here
http://news.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.vibed/
IMO dlang should be powered by vibe.d
December 12, 2012
Re: dlang.org Library Reference
Am 11.12.2012 22:13, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
> On 12/11/12 3:54 PM, Rob T wrote:
>> On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 22:33:49 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2012 05:16 AM, Mr. Anonymous wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 10 December 2012 at 02:10:43 UTC, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>>>>> Is anyone else noticing e.g. std.datetime taking upwards of 30 seconds
>>>>> to render the blob of links at the top? It's freakin freezing my
>>>>> entire browser.
>>>>
>>>> ddox* on dlang.org, anyone?
>>>> http://vibed.org/temp/phobos/index.html
>>>>
>>>> * https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox
>>>
>>> Man, how did I miss that? I like that.
>>
>> http://vibed.org/temp/phobos/std/datetime.html
>>
>> Wow, that's a HUGE improvement to what has been a very difficult read
>> for std.datetime.
>>
>> I'd like to bookmark the Vibe Phobos reference page for use as my
>> library reference. Will it remain there at least until the official web
>> page reference is improved in a similar or identical way?
> 
> Do whom do we talk about Borging the vibe dox into dlang.org?
> 
> Andrei
> 

Sorry, didn't see this until now. So from the top of my head these would be the points that are
necessary to properly integrate it:

1. Need to write a template that integrates nicely with dlang.org (simple part).

2. Some adjustments to the Phobos DDOC comments are necessary. Some macros insert manual links or
other things that may not be needed or would insert the wrong target URLs (e.g. $(MYREF) in
std.algorithm). The docs automatically get full cross linking by searching the doc comments for
identifiers. This also means that there may be a (higher) number of false positives which need to be
escaped with "_" as per the DDOC specification.

3. Some adjustments for (or an alternative version of) std.ddoc to leave out some HTML styling or
linking

4. There are probably some smaller glitches that need to be resolved over time (such as the
"See_Also:" section, which should probably be displayed as "See also" or in a whole different way).

5. The JSON output is a bit sparse and buggy in some places (templates, enums), which results in
missing bits in some places. I'm counting on https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1179
to fix this at some point.


I could make a repository and put everything needed for 1, 3 and 4, as well as a generator script,
in there. 2 mostly needs to be tackled in the Phobos sources but shouldn't be that big of a deal.
December 12, 2012
Re: dlang.org Library Reference
On Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 21:41:10 UTC, Pragma Tix wrote:
>
> Soenke Ludwig, or ask here
> http://news.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.vibed/
> IMO dlang should be powered by vibe.d

If Vibe.d is stable enough at this point (it's a WIP) then yes 
that would be a good idea, and a good pitch for both D and Vide.

--rt
1 2 3 4 5 6
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home