On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 15:01:32 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 10:16:22 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:06:25 +1000
Manu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
I'd suggest to look at high-quality commercial documentation,
like MSDN or wherever.
please, no! the fact that you are used to it doesn't mean that
msdn is a quality dox.
Frankly, I think you're letting your prejudices against the
source of the documentation cloud your judgement of the
quality. Much as I hate to admit it, their _reference_
documentation is much more readable at the baseline.
Yep, MSDN is pretty good. I often end up there when other sources
fail. They are also quite good at documenting what version you
need to use a feature.
_less noisy_. This is what we mean when we talk about
"quality" in documentation. Hell, a lot of CPAN docs are
easier to follow than the Phobos stuff, and that's _Perl_ for
crissakes!
I'd like to see the phobos documentation in a XML format. That
would make it a lot easier to parse, analyse and generate
improved extended documentation.
aside a chunk of time to "learn" it is really silly. But it's
not as silly as the idea that you don't learn the language by
diving in.
You know, by using it (and the standard library) to solve a
problem? This is simply how people pick up new programming
languages.
Commented code in tutorials and a collection of short idiomatic
examples + good reference documentation with
fast-easy-and-precise lookup goes a long way.
It's more akin to the Haskell reaction: "This seems neat, but
it's asking way too much of me and I don't have time for it."
Yep, that is how I felt about Haskell when using the interpreter
many years ago, but this:
https://tryhaskell.org/
is enough to get me beyond the initial "headache" that the
weirder aspects of Haskell may cause (such as the function
signatures).
Such interactive walk-throughs of the basics are really useful if
you want to ease the learning curve in a fun way.
