14 months ago i tried to write my first webapp. initially i chose vibe.d to be my framework. i got a simple app running quickly, but due to my lack of knowledge about webapps in general i got stuck at rather fundamental things. like doing authentication over oauth, or even have a rough guideline how to structure my app.

as a beginner using d and vibe.d is quite hard. nobody takes you by the hand and it is that read the fucking manual situation :D .. most of us are quite lazy with reading the docs, and want to see some working stuff! :) (at least if you are programming on fun projects and not for your job)

so as a result for my own project i switched to nodejs. nodejs fresh, its new and its in use everywhere .. every problem has been tackled with it and stackoverflow solved 90% of my problems. i still produced the worst spaghetti code with it because i didn't know how to structure a webapp correctly.

to my conclusion .. if you don't know what you are doing switch to something popular and you will be much happier. npm install icecreammachinewithsprinkles! but if you are good at what you are doing and see the benefits that d can give you it is worth staying.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 13:56:01 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 03:14 PM, Intersteller wrote:
>> Vibe.d looks great on the surface but  lack of documentation,
>
> http://vibed.org/docs
> http://vibed.org/api
>
> There's also two examples right on the homepage. Did you try scrolling?
>
> I'll grant that the stupid "modern" sales-pitch-first, content-hidden-in-small-print-below web design style that's so popular and now used on vibe's homepage makes those harder to find than they should be, but still, these ARE right there on the homepage, and it's very complete.
>

I agree. When I fist saw the new layout, it took me a few minutes to find my way around. "Documentation", one of the most important points, is not very prominent and leads you to "First steps" instead of the "API Reference" (which again is not very prominent). Maybe it would help to separate "API" and "First steps" and make points like "Authentication" (and other common features) more prominent.

>> commonly used functionality,
>
> Not really. Cite examples of such missing functionality?
>
>> and that it looks like it is dying suggests that
>
> You're just making that up, aren't you?
> Here: https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d/commits/master
>
> Not to be a dick, but you really didn't look *at all*, did you?

Given that vibe.d's last release was on "Mon, 04 Jul 2016" (~2 1/2 months ago) I don't know where the OP got that impression form either. If you look at Go's release policy you'll see that it has had a 6 months release cycle since 1.5[1], with longer breaks before that:

go1.7 (released 2016/08/15)
    Minor revisions
go1.6 (released 2016/02/17)
    Minor revisions
go1.5 (released 2015/08/19)
    Minor revisions

[1] https://golang.org/doc/devel/release.html

Wrong claims or assumptions like "vibe.d is dying" have to be addressed on this forum, since they might (wrongly) turn off potential users.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 13:56:01 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 03:14 PM, Intersteller wrote:
>> Vibe.d looks great on the surface but  lack of documentation,
>
> http://vibed.org/docs
> http://vibed.org/api
>
> There's also two examples right on the homepage. Did you try scrolling?

To someone like me, who has done little web development, that documentation isn't very helpful. I have copies of both D Web Development and Learning D (which includes a nice example) and *that* got me going. Overall, there are currently better alternatives to Vibe.d for someone wanting to learn web development.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 16:13:13 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>
> To someone like me, who has done little web development, that documentation isn't very helpful. I have copies of both D Web Development and Learning D (which includes a nice example) and *that* got me going. Overall, there are currently better alternatives to Vibe.d for someone wanting to learn web development.

Well, it depends on what you want / need: server development or D + server development. If it's server development, there are loads of options and you don't need to go the lengths of learning D.

In my case, I had loads of stuff written in D and wanted to use it as a web service. Thus, vibe.d was the obvious choice. I knew almost nothing about server development when I started and found out that it's not vibe.d's lack of documentation, but how servers work that is the biggest obstacle. Once you know how certain things work, it's no longer so hard find out how to do it with vibe.d, e.g. when and how to set headers "Access-Control-Allow-Origin", "Accept-Ranges". But the reason you have to set these headers has nothing to do with vibe.d, but with HTTP, Javascript and browsers.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 17:05:41 UTC, Chris wrote:
> found out that it's not vibe.d's lack of documentation, but how servers work that is the biggest obstacle. Once you know how certain things work, it's no longer so hard find out how to do it with vibe.d, e.g. when and how to set headers "Access-Control-Allow-Origin", "Accept-Ranges". But the reason you have to set these headers has nothing to do with vibe.d, but with HTTP, Javascript and browsers.

I agree, but it is easier to learn those things if you're using a different language, due to the assumption with vibe.d that you've got that background.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 16:13:13 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 13:56:01 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On 09/20/2016 03:14 PM, Intersteller wrote:
>>> Vibe.d looks great on the surface but  lack of documentation,
>>
>> http://vibed.org/docs
>> http://vibed.org/api
>>
>> There's also two examples right on the homepage. Did you try scrolling?
>
> To someone like me, who has done little web development, that documentation isn't very helpful. I have copies of both D Web Development and Learning D (which includes a nice example) and *that* got me going. Overall, there are currently better alternatives to Vibe.d for someone wanting to learn web development.

I you have "D Web Development" then that's enough to do almost anything with vibe.d in web development.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 17:22:26 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>
> I agree, but it is easier to learn those things if you're using a different language, due to the assumption with vibe.d that you've got that background.

Yeah, I think that's the basic problem with people's expectations of vibe.d. What is hard is not vibe.d but to know how to set up a web project properly, which is a different kettle of fish. Maybe we should make this clear to everyone: vibe.d helps you to set up a server/web service, if you are already familiar with or willing to learn web stuff.

Nice additions to vibed.org would be:

1. (more) template projects (chat room etc.)
2. a section that addresses common problems (cross origin access and whatnot)

The web is a never ending source of grief for developers. Did you know that to be able to play sound files more than once in Chrome you have to `addField("Accept-Ranges", "bytes")` whenever a sound file is requested? Not so with FF. It just never ends, and I think sooner or later you will run into problems like that with any framework.

tldr; vibe.d helps you to set up web servers, but you have to know web related stuff too - or be willing to learn it as you go along. It's not straight out of the box.

On Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at 18:00:14 UTC, Chris wrote:
>
> tldr; vibe.d helps you to set up web servers, but you have to know web related stuff too - or be willing to learn it as you go along. It's not straight out of the box.

The tutorials page is not the prettiest page in the world.

Among other things, it probably couldn't hurt to have an introductory paragraph at the top. It could potentially include a line that knowing networking and servers helps in understanding vibe (and maybe including links to a few good resources).

On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 19:14:41 UTC, Intersteller wrote:
> Vibe.d looks great on the surface but lack of documentation, commonly used functionality, and that it looks like it is dying suggests that putting any effort in to it will be a waste. Go, OTH, has tons of frameworks, most are actively support, very well documented(beego, revel, etc), and feature rich.
>
> If I am going to put any work in to something, I want to make sure that I can depend on it in the future. It doesn't look like this is the case with vibe.d. Hopefully vibe.d will not die and will mature enough in the future so it actually provides a good alternative to the current web frameworks.

You can try hunt framework:

git clone https://github.com/putaolabs/hunt-skeleton.git myproject
cd myproject
dub run

Open the URL with the browser:

http://localhost:8080/

OK, you seccessed.

You can edit config/application.conf to change http port.
You can edit config/routes to setting your router options, like:

GET    /    index.index
POST   /    index.hello

You can add yourself Controller to source app/controller directory.

You can like use java's play framework / php's laravel / ruby's rails / python's django framework to use dlang's hunt framework ( https://github.com/putaolabs/hunt/ ).

We are not perfect, but we will continue to update, together to create a perfect D programming language framework.

On Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 19:14:41 UTC, Intersteller wrote:
> Vibe.d looks great on the surface but lack of documentation, commonly used functionality, and that it looks like it is dying suggests that putting any effort in to it will be a waste. Go, OTH, has tons of frameworks, most are actively support, very well documented(beego, revel, etc), and feature rich.
>
> If I am going to put any work in to something, I want to make sure that I can depend on it in the future. It doesn't look like this is the case with vibe.d. Hopefully vibe.d will not die and will mature enough in the future so it actually provides a good alternative to the current web frameworks.

lol, no generics