On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:52:06 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:40:48 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:31:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>> i'm trying to hint that there is no reason to reimplement *everything* in D. bad engineers reinvent, good engineers reuse!
>>
>> This is about marketing, not engineering.
>
> nope, it is about engineering. as long as D is not backed by some giant like google or apple, it is about engineering.

Huh? No, as long as D is not backed by some giant like Google or Apple it has to do its own marketing and showcase its own stuff where it can.

People are not looking for something that takes engineering to work well. They are looking for something that just-works and that they can build on from the get go.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:57:42 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> Huh? No, as long as D is not backed by some giant like Google or Apple it has to do its own marketing and showcase its own stuff where it can.

the key words are "where it can". rewriting already working tools (perfectly working) in D is "marketing for the marketing sake". if there are money to waste, an engineer can be hired to rewrite such tools. otherwise, it is much wiser to reuse existing ones.


> People are not looking for something that takes engineering to work well. They are looking for something that just-works and that they can build on from the get go.

so they should pass-by. D is the language to build tools, not some "batteries included" language. this is The Way to market it, i believe.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:07:26 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:57:42 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> Huh? No, as long as D is not backed by some giant like Google or Apple it has to do its own marketing and showcase its own stuff where it can.
>
> the key words are "where it can". rewriting already working tools (perfectly working) in D is "marketing for the marketing sake". if there are money to waste, an engineer can be hired to rewrite such tools. otherwise, it is much wiser to reuse existing ones.

Yes, no point in writing your own forum software. However, if you need nginx to perform on a small scale site like dlang.org then you basically say that the D http stack is not yet competitive with C++.

Contrast that to:
- Vibe.d is so great that we don't need a front end to perform well.

> so they should pass-by. D is the language to build tools, not some "batteries included" language. this is The Way to market it, i believe.

Fair enough, maybe that is more honest, but it doesn't drive the project forward to a situation where it can showcase "download-compile-install" starting points.

And that is what most people want. Most people want to solve a specific problem. If you have something they can make work right away and then modify then you are more like to be adopted.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:18:27 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software...
>
> it's even more than that: D servers are using OS which is not implemented in D!

Whats worse is the software running the power stations that power the servers that host the website aren't written in D.  Neither were the software that run the militaries that protect the interests of the locations where the servers live.  Obviously this means that D is useless and should die.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:23:13 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> Yes, no point in writing your own forum software.

ah, sure, there was the reason to write DFeed! that's why forum.dlang.org is using engine written in D.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:28:54 UTC, dewitt wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:18:27 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>> People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software...
>>
>> it's even more than that: D servers are using OS which is not implemented in D!
>
> Whats worse is the software running the power stations that power the servers that host the website aren't written in D.  Neither were the software that run the militaries that protect the interests of the locations where the servers live.  Obviously this means that D is useless and should die.

Yes, indeed, if golang was not showcased as a web server language then I would not even consider looking at it for the purpose.

They do of course use golang for their blog and make it available as a download.

As they _should_.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:32:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:13:07 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> I've decided to write a web application using vibe and was shocked to see that dlang.org was using apache.
>>
>> Should I be scared that even after this long, the official D website doesn't rely on its own web tools?
>
> No, you shouldn't. Like everything else, it's a matter of priorities and resources. Currently, code.dlang.org and tour.dlang.org both run on vibe.d, both of which were put together by community members. The forums here is Vladimir's DFeed, which he developed with his own web tools. There may yet come a time when someone converts dlang.org to a vibe.d web app, but it almost certainly isn't going to be any of the core team members. They have enough on their plate already.

Btw for development dlang.org uses vibed since 2.5 years ;-)

```
make -f posix.mak apidocs-serve
```

It will run ddox on every request.

> Hell, if it's ever been brought up in the forums before now, I don't remember seeing it. While it would be great in terms of dog fooding to see such a project, I personally don't see that it's a big deal if dlang.org runs on Apache. Maybe if you've got some extra time... :)


I agree - this is bikeshedding. We all rely on existing software for our day to day life. I quickly checked the first hit server for other languages - have a look:

rust.org: nginx
php.net: nginx
julia.org: Apache
scala-lang.org: Apache
julia-lang.org: Github
python.org: nginx
www.cplusplus.com: Apache
perl.org: Apache
developer.mozilla.org: Apache
ruby-lang.org: nginx
swift.org: Apache

... and the last time I checked all of them use the C implementation of git for their source code ;-)

Mike's call for help was about actively _improving_ dlang.org by pointing out

- what is (or could be) confusing for newcomers
- bad written texts
- missing examples
- not user-friendly parts of the documentation
- missing info
- ...

Basically everything that could stop someone from having awesome first five minutes with D!

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:36:50 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:23:13 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> Yes, no point in writing your own forum software.
>
> ah, sure, there was the reason to write DFeed! that's why forum.dlang.org is using engine written in D.

DFeed is a NNTP client, not a NNTP server.

(NNTP is pretty much dead, so not much point in it, true. Was that your point? Or are you back into zealot-mode? :^)

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:38:02 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> They do of course use golang for their blog and make it available as a download.
>
> As they _should_.

google. money. does that rings the bell?

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:40:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> DFeed is a NNTP client, not a NNTP server.

sure. why should it be an NNTP server? there is task to solve: provide web frontend to the existing NNTP server. that task was solved. there was no task "waste some time to rewrite already working NNTP server software in D in the sake of rewriting".