Re: [boost] [Experimental Boost.DI] [v1.0.0 released] [Looking for a Review Manager] Your C+14 Dependency Injection library with no overhead and compile time creation guarantee!

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:

...

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Andrey Semashev < andrey.semashev@gmail.com

...

wrote:

...

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Steven Watanabe

...

wrote:

...

I can understand needing javascript to test the code online and I can sort of justify using it for higlighting

I can't. Highlighting is static content, there is no need for JS for

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Krzysztof Jusiak wrote: that.

...

I created a ticket do display the code without JS -> https://github.com/boost-experimental/di/issues/208. However, highlighting will require JS to be enabled. I get your point that it might be done statically, however, mkdocs is

using

...

JS for it and I don't see a huge reason to change it.

Well, to me the JS-only markup would be a reason enough...

...

Anyway, on this note, I really do not understand why requirement of Java Script is such a big thing?

There are two aspects to this. First is conceptual. Using JS where static content can and should be used is just wasteful in terms of client performance and battery life. I'm sad to see that JS is often viewed as a hammer for every nail and we can see JS projects that should have never existed in the first place. I hate to see web pages that load CPU, are difficult to scroll and cause closing the tab take seconds.

Second is practical. Boost docs are also built into pdf, and JS cannot be used there. Also there are people who disable JS in web browsers. Whether these people are 1% or not I cannot tell, but I don't think you want to deny them reading your docs. Then there's some people who'd like to have the docs offline. This is certainly the case for Boost packagers.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't mind using JS for interactive stuff you mentioned - when the docs are online. But all these bells and whistles should be strictly optional and the docs should be viewable without them. You could say the code snippets are viewable without highlighting and that is true, but I can't say such docs are comfortable to read. And since static highlighting is easy with Doxygen or QuickBook, I think it should be done.

I agree that there should be an option to see it without JS, however, I don't think it's a priority these days. As I mentioned before I'm going to fix visibility of code when JS is disabled ( https://github.com/boost-experimental/di/issues/208). I don't see much problem in generating pdf from markdown and JS either. I would even say it might be done with one-liner ;) Furthermore, If it comes to JS you can change the style/theme online. Imagine someone doesn't like the highlighting provided and would like a different one. With the static solution, another version of the website would have to be provided. JS + CSS let you change it dynamically. IMHO it's a great timing for all C++ developers to appreciate JS/HTML5 as we have tools like Emscripten/Cheerp to our disposition now. I predict that more and more stuff will be written or ported this way as you can write one code for all platforms including Web and Mobile.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost