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?

On 09/06/2016 1:13 AM, 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?

Why would we change over when Apache is working quite happily to serve up static content?

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.

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... :)

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.

It is very common for real world web apps to run behind Apache, nginx, IIS, or another major production server.

These servers tend to be very efficient at front end tasks like load balancing, static file serving and cache management, standards compliance (including automatically up/down grading HTTP versions or TLS requirements), management, security (including handling horribly malformed requests) - stuff that can take megabytes of code to get right and is typically outside the scope of an application server.

Of course, they can also serve up different parts of a large website to different application servers transparently to the end user - e.g. one part in PHP, another part proxied to vibe.


BTW ironically, a lot of people complain that D DOES use its own web technology on the website: it is mostly statically generated ddoc!

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:32:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> Why would we change over when Apache is working quite happily to serve up static content?

I've heard that same argument as the reason people don't use the D language.  Why would I change over to D when C/C++ is working quite happily?

If the official D website doesn't feel like migrating it's own infrastructure to use D, why would anyone else?  Of course apache works (so does C++), but choosing not to put in the time to switch says a lot to the rest of the world.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:30:53 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> These servers tend to be very efficient at front end tasks like load balancing, static file serving and cache management, standards compliance (including automatically up/down grading HTTP versions or TLS requirements), management, security (including handling horribly malformed requests) - stuff that can take megabytes of code to get right and is typically outside the scope of an application server.

That's actually the reason I would think dlang.org should use vibe.  Those features are critical to the success and viability of vibe.  By making dlang.org dependent on vibe, those features are much more likely to be flushed out and maintained at a high standard.

>
> BTW ironically, a lot of people complain that D DOES use its own web technology on the website: it is mostly statically generated ddoc!

I saw some discussion on that in the forums when I was searching for info on why dlang.org doesn't use vibe.  I personally like that dlang uses ddoc, but I don't know too much about the realistic pros and cons.  I do like the concept though.

On 6/8/16 10:33 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:32:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> Why would we change over when Apache is working quite happily to serve
>> up static content?
>
> I've heard that same argument as the reason people don't use the D
> language.  Why would I change over to D when C/C++ is working quite
> happily?
>
> If the official D website doesn't feel like migrating it's own
> infrastructure to use D, why would anyone else?  Of course apache works
> (so does C++), but choosing not to put in the time to switch says a lot
> to the rest of the world.
>

The concern trolling on this forum has been escalating lately. It's good that people are noticing D more!

-Steve

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:33:50 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:32:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> Why would we change over when Apache is working quite happily to serve up static content?
>
> I've heard that same argument as the reason people don't use the D language.  Why would I change over to D when C/C++ is working quite happily?
>
> If the official D website doesn't feel like migrating it's own infrastructure to use D, why would anyone else?  Of course apache works (so does C++), but choosing not to put in the time to switch says a lot to the rest of the world.

Well, if this is the only area where it happens then it's ok.

But DMD also doesn't use the GC because it doesn't perform well enough. Stuff like this adds up.

So I agree with you in essence, sending the message that there are things to avoid is not good in the long run. It might be better to take a slight performance hit and use your own stuff and post a list of things you are working on to improve it.

I like the "are we fast yet" websites that various project put up, displaying improvements over time.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:33:50 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:32:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> Why would we change over when Apache is working quite happily to serve up static content?

I didn't say that. Rikki did :)


> If the official D website doesn't feel like migrating it's own infrastructure to use D, why would anyone else?  Of course apache works (so does C++), but choosing not to put in the time to switch says a lot to the rest of the world.

Really? I just don't see it as that big of a deal. Again, three subdomains are using D right now. So it's not like it's not being used at all. Moving the website to D just hasn't been a priority (nor should it be, IMO). Anyone in the community who *does* feel it's important is certainly free to put together a prototype and pitch it to the core team. I would ask their thoughts about it first, though, before embarking on such a project.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:41:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

>
> But DMD also doesn't use the GC because it doesn't perform well enough. Stuff like this adds up.
>
> So I agree with you in essence, sending the message that there are things to avoid is not good in the long run. It might be better to take a slight performance hit and use your own stuff and post a list of things you are working on to improve it.
>
> I like the "are we fast yet" websites that various project put up, displaying improvements over time.

What does that have to do with the website? The forum software is written in D and has a reputation for performance. This is simply a matter of it not popping up on anyone's radar and has nothing to do with the GC or performance hits.