At Tue, 25 May 2010 11:05:10 +0100, Daniel James wrote:
On 25 May 2010 03:27, Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis@gmail.com> wrote:
So we still touch raw HTML? That's a little painful.
Not really, HTML has excellent tool support. Several developers want to use WYSIWYG editors.
Even the web designers/developers I know are moving to haml [0] which is a lot friendlier for people writing code which eventually gets turned into HTML by some processor.
We can't really expect people to learn another technology and install another toolset. I think you need to understand HTML in order to use haml anyway.
There are also other tools like Jekyll [1] and Sphinx [2] which deal with Markdown and Restructured Text respectively to generate nice static web sites.
The website predates both tools. Hyde would be a better choice than Jekyll since Python is preferred round here. I'd be a little worried about how flexible they are.
Underlying technology is of the least importance. I use Wordpress (which is PHP) not because I am a fan of PHP but because it “just works,” is accessible to all categories of users, and many people use it already. It's much more important to pick a tool that has enormous momentum and support from outside our little community than it is to use technology we “prefer.” That's also why I'd like not to waste any time trying to figure out how to do these things with C++ or especially with Boost.
I agree, and it would be nice if we would use something like Wordpress MU so that we can have library maintainers manage their own sub-sites.
I'm trying not to be the voice of pessimism, but I don't think that's feasible. Library maintainers already have enough of a workload, and several libraries don't even have maintainers.
I disagree. Part of the reason the workload is so high is that maintaining documentation and other information about libraries is too labor-intensive. Make it more accessible and the work gets easier. -- Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com