On Sunday, 18 January 2015 at 10:24:29 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Why don't we instead make use of a proper framework both on the
server side and client side. Personally I would go with Ruby on
Rails but I know that most of you here would hate that so a
better suggestion would probably be vibe.d. For the client side
I'm thinking Bootstrap and jQuery.
I would suggest you avoid frameworks since they go out of fashion
fairly quickly and makes maintenance dependent on individuals
(with framework knowledge). jQuery adds little value since
browsers are fairly standards-compliant these days, IMO.
http://caniuse.com/#feature_sort=score
It would also look very bad if you cannot run dlang.org on D
tech. I suggest using dlang.org for driving phobos
implementation/binding of standard w3 web tech. No point in
having D marketing other languages or their frameworks.
1. semantic markup i XML (DDoc 2 XML would be a good
startingpoint)
2. XSLT for transforming XML to HTML5
3. K.I.S.S. design wise: WAI+HTML5+CSS3 (marginal use of JS)
Let HTML5 layout design be a group effort and then let 1-2
individuals (who know what they are doing) do the CSS styling
from scratch after you have the HTML5 ready.
The biggest reason why I would prefer Rails is because I know
everything that is needed is already implemented and easily
available. I can not say the same thing about vibe.d. But it
Yes, but then you+somone else have to maintain it. More people
have a interest in learning the basic web standards than learning
a specific framework.
It would be better to use dlang.org development to drive the
design of vibe.d and phobos and front D as a capable server tech.
It could also be used for a vibe.d tutorial. A "dlang.org design
and build tutorial" could both market D and make it easier for
people to contribute.
