On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:30:28 -0500, retard <re@tard.com.invalid> wrote:

> I'm using the same argumentation as Walter here. If I ever contributed
> code to the proprietary dmd, I would get sued by a group of lawyers when
> contributing code later to some other proprietary / open source compiler.
> Even seeing the code might taint my mind.

Huh?... The front end is GPLed, just stay away from the back end. The doc generator is in the former part. You are criticizing the doc generator right? How would yo be sued contributing to a GPLed code? Or are you just pulling a strawman?


-- 
Yao G.

Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:33:30 -0500, Yao G. wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:18:19 -0500, retard <re@tard.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> [snip]
> 
> Thanks for your informative post. I'm really glad that you don't use such primitive, butt-ugly tools like DDOC.

You don't need to use it either. Why do you think it's a personal attack if I'm evaluating some tool and don't see it fit for some part of the community? Do you think my opinions would have more value if I wrote under my real name? ''Yao G.'' is also too generic to disclose any identity using typical search engines. Even if I knew your real name, it would have zero value to me since it would still be some generic wise guy who disagreed but had actually really nothing to say.

On 15/08/2010 04:51, retard wrote:
> Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:33:30 -0500, Yao G. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:18:19 -0500, retard<re@tard.com.invalid>  wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> Thanks for your informative post. I'm really glad that you don't use
>> such primitive, butt-ugly tools like DDOC.
>
> You don't need to use it either. Why do you think it's a personal attack
> if I'm evaluating some tool and don't see it fit for some part of the
> community? Do you think my opinions would have more value if I wrote
> under my real name? ''Yao G.'' is also too generic to disclose any
> identity using typical search engines. Even if I knew your real name, it
> would have zero value to me since it would still be some generic wise guy
> who disagreed but had actually really nothing to say.

Troll.

/Max

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:51:45 -0500, retard <re@tard.com.invalid> wrote:

> You don't need to use it either. Why do you think it's a personal attack
> if I'm evaluating some tool and don't see it fit for some part of the
> community? Do you think my opinions would have more value if I wrote
> under my real name? ''Yao G.'' is also too generic to disclose any
> identity using typical search engines. Even if I knew your real name, it
> would have zero value to me since it would still be some generic wise guy
> who disagreed but had actually really nothing to say.

I don't really care either way ''retard''  :)


-- 
''Yao G.'' the wise guy that disagreed and had really nothing to say.

retard Wrote:

> Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:33:30 -0500, Yao G. wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 21:18:19 -0500, retard <re@tard.com.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> [snip]
> > 
> > Thanks for your informative post. I'm really glad that you don't use such primitive, butt-ugly tools like DDOC.
> 
> You don't need to use it either. Why do you think it's a personal attack if I'm evaluating some tool and don't see it fit for some part of the community? Do you think my opinions would have more value if I wrote under my real name? ''Yao G.'' is also too generic to disclose any identity using typical search engines. Even if I knew your real name, it would have zero value to me since it would still be some generic wise guy who disagreed but had actually really nothing to say.

Go away troll! Your just waisting our time. Go write some real world code and talk less shit. There's nothing to loose.

DDOC is better than doxygen. We don't need to argue that here, because everyone is a fan of D. We know you're a Haskell fanboy so climb to your ivory tower and stay there. This newsgroups needs more practically minded people who value productivity.

On Saturday 14 August 2010 20:42:42 Ellis Peters wrote:
> Go away troll! Your just waisting our time. Go write some real world code and talk less shit. There's nothing to loose.
> 
> DDOC is better than doxygen. We don't need to argue that here, because everyone is a fan of D. We know you're a Haskell fanboy so climb to your ivory tower and stay there. This newsgroups needs more practically minded people who value productivity.

Well, if he's being a troll, don't feed him. There's no need to respond so negatively. It will just feed the flames of any argument.

While I do think that retard has a tendancy to be a troll sometimes, your response to him is nasty enough that plenty of people would think that _you_'re being a troll. Let's please try and keep things civil around here.

- Jonathan M Davis

== Quote from Adam Ruppe (destructionator@gmail.com)'s article
> To me, the biggest appeal of ddoc is that it doesn't require markup to give good enough results. It's almost mindless to use.

Not only that, because it doesn't require markup, the docs look good as plain text comments, not just when processed into HTML.

dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Adam Ruppe (destructionator@gmail.com)'s article
>> To me, the biggest appeal of ddoc is that it doesn't require markup to
>> give good enough results. It's almost mindless to use.
> 
> Not only that, because it doesn't require markup, the docs look good as plain text
> comments, not just when processed into HTML.

That wasn't by accident :-). One of the explicit major goals of Ddoc was to not require any markup unless you are getting into more advanced use of it. Some of the design was compromised to make that work, but I think the results are worth it.

Walter Bright Wrote:

> dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from Adam Ruppe (destructionator@gmail.com)'s article
> >> To me, the biggest appeal of ddoc is that it doesn't require markup to give good enough results. It's almost mindless to use.
> > 
> > Not only that, because it doesn't require markup, the docs look good as plain text comments, not just when processed into HTML.
> 
> That wasn't by accident :-). One of the explicit major goals of Ddoc was to not require any markup unless you are getting into more advanced use of it. Some of the design was compromised to make that work, but I think the results are worth it.

Unlike doxygen, Ddoc almost accepts plain english. It's not hard to see how much better designed Ddoc is *for D code*. A generic document generator can never support unit tests, contracts and so forth. I disagree with our ''retard'' completely.

retard wrote:
> Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:24:33 -0500, Yao G. wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:20:49 -0500, Mike Parker <aldacron@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What prevents you from contributing to the frontend under its current
>>> license?
>> Apparently he doesn't like butt-ugly frontends. That's the game breaker
>> for him  :|
> 
> I'm using the same argumentation as Walter here. If I ever contributed code to the proprietary dmd, I would get sued by a group of lawyers when contributing code later to some other proprietary / open source compiler. Even seeing the code might taint my mind. Just like Walter refuses to read Tango's code to prevent license issues with Phobos.
> 


> Dmd's code also has several problems. I don't think it supports multi-
> core CPUs very well when parsing files. The other issues are: forward reference bugs, lack of a good internal garbage collector (CTFE & templates), not well documented (I know nearly nothing about compiler implementation).

Those things are all true, but not relevant to ddoc. The ddoc code is just doc.c, which is 58kB in size. You're quite right in saying that something much better could be produced in a week or so of work. The existing ddoc was made in about a week, and I've spent a couple of days fixing some of the most obvious bugs.

Now that most of the wrong-code and compiler error bugs are fixed, other stuff is becoming higher priority. Still, the fact that there are a thousand open compiler bugs, and only a couple of people working on the compiler is a pretty obvious limitation. Would be great if someone put a  concerted effort into ddoc for a