On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 at 09:05:58 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 16 December 2014 at 00:04, Kagamin via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 14 December 2014 at 08:37:36 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
They then made HUGE noises about the quality of
documentation. The
prevailing opinion was that the D docs, in the eyes of a
not-a-D-expert, are basically unreadable to them. The
formatting
didn't help, there's a lot of noise and a lack of structure
in the
documentation's presentation that makes it hard to see the
information
through the layout and noise. As senior software engineers,
they
basically expected that they should be able to read and
understand the
docs, even if they don't really know the language, after all,
"what is
the point of documentation if not to teach the language..."
I tend to agree, I find that I can learn most languages to a
basic
level by skimming the docs, but the D docs are an anomaly in
this way;
it seems you have to already know D to be able to understand
it
effectively. They didn't know javascript either, but skimming
the
node.js docs they got the job done in an hour or so, after
having
wasted *2 days* trying to force their way through the various
frictions presented but their initial experience with D.
Comparing node.js to D? You probably speak about vibe, not D?
The majority of hours spent were not really related to vibe.d
so much
as trying to wrangle the tooling, debugging crashes, and
understand
the docs to get some very basic things done.
These are 'D' experience if you ask me.
very well said. it's not about just the environment, the language
or phobos. it is about the experience that we provide to a new
comer to D.
i remember walter said "build it and they will come is a lie."
well, how about it "give a better experience and they will come?"
One of the take-away quotes I think, was "D seems to be a
language for
people who actively want to go and look for it, and take the
time to
learn it. That's never going to be a commercial success."
O_O Huh? Your team really didn't learn C++?
We didn't 'learn' javascript, or python, or html, or whatever
else you
pick up on the job.
The investment in learning 'programming' is decades behind us,
and I
think it's a reasonable expectation that a language present
itself in
such a way that it's intuitive and easy to get some basic things
going.
Leveraging small example snippets from the docs, etc. D is very
easy
for a C/C++ programmer, but the docs don't make it appear that
way,
and they give the wrong impression.
The overpowering presence of templates in the docs give a first
impression that reminds people of everything that's wrong with
C++,
which I suspect most C++ programmers looking into D are actively
trying to escape!
There simply can't be friction on step 1! There can be friction
on
step 4 or 5 when you've already made some minor achievements,
and have
a good few hours invested.
Any friction on step 1 or 2 will lead to an almost immediate
rejection.
i am a python, ruby and groovy developer. D was very easy also
for a programmer like me. every time i come back, i find comfort
at D. honestly, D is python on stereoids for me. till i look at
the docs and see all those things that doesn't mean anything at
first sight. then i spend some time to understand the signatures,
the bodies.
maybe, generated docs are not a good idea and hand-written, more
explanatory docs are better for d?
