On 27/01/2015 8:29 a.m., Laeeth Isharc wrote:
At the moment it goes straight go code.dlang.org, which may be a bit
overwhelming if you have just arrived at dlang.org and want to see what
it can do.
Is it worth changing to the library wiki write up page on libraries?
And making sure link to code.dlang.org is prominent, saying
"code.dlang.org is a registry of D libraries hosted on github. There
are currently XYZ libraries, of which ABC are under active development".
At the moment, the list of libraries on the wiki is fairly complete, but
not oriented towards answering the question of how do I do stuff. It
would be nice to have a set of pages on this that mines the gold from
the forums and makes it easy to find. Eg "how do I navigate html or
xml?". Use dom.d or ae, and here are some simple programs.
Compare python community doc situation to ours. (We are leaner, but
that doesn't mean we can't do a better job),
Also say that if you cannot find the library you need, you should know
that it is easy to interface to all C libraries (click for details), and
that it is possible and fairly easy to interface to many C++ libraries
(click here).
p0nce and others are doing great work on D idioms, but what is missing
is pointers to examples of larger programs. I know it is common sense
if you are experienced to read the source of other projects to learn,
but is it worth making this easy by having in the section on learning D
some pointers to some model D code bases.
The FUD crowd on slashdot always brings up the Tango / Phobos split, but
this is not prominently addressed on the web site. Should this not be
answered in the main FAQ?
The compilation speed of dmd (and somewhat ldc) is a major advantage.
It is stunning in outright terms, and almost inconceivable if you come
from the world of c++. It really matters because it allows you to shift
styles to iterative development. So it should be featured on the front
page, and there should be quantitative benchmarks (because that's what
modern people like) comparing dmd to other language compilers as well as
pointing out how quickly phobos compiles. A YouTube video may make it
more concrete. And there should be quotes from authoritative users of D
talking about how useful they find quick compilation and iterative
development.
People are lazy. Or more charitably, not wealthy in terms of attention
and time in the modern world. The documentation is often written from
the point of view of the compiler and library writer, and this is not
the point of view of the user, who wants to know what he can do, and how
he can do it.
In the "interfacing to C tutorial", how about starting off by getting to
the point. Have the following section at the beginning, and maybe even
make it crisper by saying that D can utilise all existing C libraries,
and all that needs to be done is to translate the header files to D.
Using Existing C Libraries
Since D can call C code directly, it can also call any C library
functions, giving D access to the smorgasbord of existing C libraries.
To do so, however, one needs to write a D interface (.di) file, which is
a translation of the C .h header file for the C library into D.
For popular C libraries, the first place to look for the corresponding D
interface file is the Deimos Project. If it isn't there already, and you
write one, please contribute it to the Deimos Project.
---
In the spirit of accommodating peoples' attention poverty, why not say
at the top that there are translation tools for objective C and C.
Click here to download dstep binaries (linux / win etc), and here to go
to the github dstep site. I confess that I struggled for ages
unsuccessfully to compile dstep on my platform without realising that
the binaries were available for download.
Similarly for C++, the web site starts off completely on the wrong
note." While D is fully capable of interfacing to C, its ability to
interface to C++ is much more limited. There are three ways to do it:"
I hear "much more limited", and think I am not going to bother with this
(if I have not yet committed to the language). Whereas in actual fact,
as Walter pointed out in his talk, nobody else can interface with C++
and it is a marvel to be able to do so at all, let alone in a way that
is much more complete than the docs suggest. And it sounds like this
phrasing is in any case outdated.
Change to something like: "Interfacing to C++ is a challenging endeavour
for any language, but it is a challenge that must be met in order to
take advantage of the large set of existing libraries and code bases in
C++. It is therefore a priority for 2015 to implement an ability to
link to a set of C++ that will be complete for most use cases. Walter
Bright spoke recently at Microsoft on this topic, and the reader may
find the following forum threads of interest.
As things stand, the following features are complete:..., whilst there
are limitations with respect to: exceptions, multiple inheritance, ...
The aim is to finish C++ interfacing in the reference compiler DMD, and
it is likely that this support will be extended to the other D language
compilers: GDC, and LDC.
Parallel to this effort, there is an alpha project called Calypso that
takes advantage of the clang API to integrate almost complete C++
support within the D compiler LDC and takes away the need to generate
separate headers. Link here to download binaries (they are not yet
available, but we should offer standard builds even though it is alpha
because of the strategic importance of the project, and because
clang/llvm is not trivial to build - I needed to edit my usr/include
headers to hack up size_align_t just to get it to compiled) and here for
github.
Laeeth
Maybe post this on D NG?
