"James Fisher" <jameshfis...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1280.1309343205.14074.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > > Perhaps we should drop the "what's better than DDOC" issue for the moment. > The real issue is relegating it to where it belongs, which is (surprise) > documenting D code.
Have you even really looked at DDoc? It's a full-fledged text-macro system. It's not as if it's just D's answer to Javadoc. > Which means separating out the stdlib documentation on > d-programming-language.org from ... everything else, in the tradition of > > - http://python.org/ vs http://docs.python.org/ > - http://www.ruby-lang.org/ <http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/> vs > http://www.ruby-doc.org/ <http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/> > - http://www.perl.org/ vs http://perldoc.perl.org/ > - http://nodejs.org/ vs http://nodejs.org/docs/v0.4.8/api/ > - and others. > > This thread is flitting between topics, for reasons that are entirely my > own. Perhaps new threads would be appropriate for: > > - Separating d-programming-language.org from > docs.d-programming-language.org Yea, we *could* play the "be a trend whore" dance and do it just like the others merely because others do it that way. But there obviously needs to be a more compelling reason than just that. And that's what I'm not seeing: What's the benefit? DDoc obviously gets the job done fine, and without creating reliance on another external tool. Any other system would need to be learned too, and DDoc is trivial to learn. So what's the compelling benefit that makes it all worthwhile?
