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!

Subject: 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!
From: Krzysztof Jusiak (krzysztof_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-24 09:07:22

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Krzysztof Jusiak <krzysztof_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Andrey Semashev <
> andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]
> >
> >> 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
> 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
>