On 2013-07-15 05:22, Walter Bright wrote:

> Ddoc isn't any harder than any of the innumerable markup languages out
> there, like mediawiki.

But how do I add support for Sass, CoffeeScript and similar languages that web developers expect today? It's dead easy in a framework like Ruby on Rails.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 03:22:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> For example, if I want to change the copyright notice, I can:
>
> 1. edit hundreds of files
>
>    -- or --
>
> 2. edit a Ddoc macro
>
> It's no contest.

Even the very simplest roll-your-own framework would remove this necessity.

Even simpler, you just split the contents of the site in to components and load them via your favourite scripting language, e.g.

<?php echo get_file_contents("copyright.html"); ?>

I don't necessarily think using ddoc is a bad idea, but web development has moved on a long way from editing every file separately.

On Sunday, 14 July 2013 at 20:35:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/14/2013 6:49 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>> But maintaining
>> whole stuff via git repo + makefiles is definitely cumbersome, no idea why that
>> was chosen.
>
> 1. github is how the entire rest of D is maintained, it would be strange if the website was handled via some completely different system.
>
> 2. github is of proven utility in enabling anyone to contribute to the web site via pull requests.
>
> 3. github/makefiles are how everything else in dlang is done, so contributors should already be familiar with the process.

Yeah, sure, I have no problem having website itself maintained via GitHub - but in my opinion it makes it much more static than it should be. For example, I'd absolutely love to see news & announcements added to the main page but don't see how it is going to happen if adding single piece of content goes through pull request procedure. Latency issues, by the time it is merged, information is likely to become irrelevant.

That is the only thing that catches my attention as an area of improvement - from non-web guy point of view, of course.

On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 06:35:44 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-07-15 05:22, Walter Bright wrote:
> ...

Makes me wonder if dlang.org backend reflavored to use vibe.d + some database has any chance to be accepted as a new upstream :) Dogfooding can done in a variety of ways ;)

Anyone know what happen to the prototype that someone made using vibe.d?

It looked really good, and worked a lot faster than the current one. It was roughly modelled on the php docs.

On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 11:20:30 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> Anyone know what happen to the prototype that someone made using vibe.d?
>
> It looked really good, and worked a lot faster than the current one. It was roughly modelled on the php docs.

This one: http://vibed.org/temp/d-programming-language.org/phobos/index.html ?
Well, as far as I understand there were still some minor remaining issues and Sonke did not have time to continue tweaking it.

It does not use vibe.d though but "ddox" - a bit more intelligent ddoc spin-off (http://code.dlang.org/packages/ddox). Same static HTML files are generated there.

On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 06:56:38 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> But how do I add support for Sass, CoffeeScript and similar languages that web developers expect today?

This is almost as silly as Walter's copyright thing, since those languages are converted to regular js+css which are linked in just like anything else. In fact, it is identical to the copyright edit except maybe editing the makefile to generate the file too.

On Sunday, 14 July 2013 at 04:56:46 UTC, Val Markovic wrote:

> There's some low-hanging fruit with the site that shouldn't be too hard to
> fix: there's an incredibly annoying "content flash" after any page is
> loaded (it loads fine, you see the text, then the text disappears for a
> second, then appears again).

The flash content bother me, because it breaks my scroll.

I think this web site is too much oriented on documentation. The home page must display news about D language, it will be great to have videos of DConf on it directly.

The documentation need to be a specific section that allow us to browse all versions (documentation is related to a specific version of the compiler).

On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 12:33:55 UTC, Flamaros wrote:
> The documentation need to be a specific section that allow us to browse all versions (documentation is related to a specific version of the compiler).

That is actually a good call. No reason why documentation part should be done in same way as rest of the website if styling stays the same.

On 2013-07-15 14:25, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

> This is almost as silly as Walter's copyright thing, since those
> languages are converted to regular js+css which are linked in just like
> anything else. In fact, it is identical to the copyright edit except
> maybe editing the makefile to generate the file too.

I would not consider it to be the same. Doing what the Rails asset pipeline does manually is quite a lot of work. Merging files, minifying, piping through various preprocessors, adding unique hash based on the content to the file name and so on.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg