Re: [boost] [doc] Liven up Boost Documentation with Java Script?

Subject: Re: [boost] [doc] Liven up Boost Documentation with Java Script?
From: Krzysztof Jusiak (krzysztof_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-26 15:09:50

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Boris Schäling <boris_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> "Krzysztof Jusiak"  wrote in message
> news:CALNnLfa+WCdCEcqAeX40ORfohCZ3UUnFyZgVicR=ZuDQwEhwNg_at_mail.gmail.com...
>
>>
>> * Run the code online (allows to check library with one click)
>>
>
> The #1 request on http://theboostcpplibraries.com/ is to make the output
> of the sample programs available right after the examples. I like that this
> is what happens when I run code online. However it might be better if the
> output was always immediately available (without having to run code first)?
> (This is of course possible by embedding output into static webpages; no
> need for an online compiler.)
>
> I'm very much in favor of providing complete sample programs which users
> can build right away and use as a starting point to play around with
> libraries. However I'm not sure whether users would like to play around
> with examples in a browser (can't remember that I ever wanted to do this)?
> If they really want to, they could copy&paste code to
> http://melpon.org/wandbox. One could provide a button or link next to
> every example which opens Wandbox and copies&pastes code automatically. But
> I don't know whether there are enough users out there who need this?
>
>
Totally agree. Personally, I really like cpprefrence and their 'run this
code'. My solution is based on the same idea ->
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/sort.
Yea, you can copy full example to wandbox, however, you won't have the
library headers there and it won't compile. BTW. I'm using wandbox under
the hood.
I firstly started with generting a link to wandobx with the library and a
basic example, but decided to go a step further with it as I have noticed
that all new languages
like rust/nim/go/d were using similar approach and because I have found it
more convinent. Furthermore, I have noticed a huge potential in it to:
* create an interactive tutorial with code excersies for the users
* printing optimized code for users to experiment easily (
http://boost-experimental.github.io/di/overview/index.html#performance)
* interact with online tools like plantuml to generate diagrams (for
example with Boost.MSM-lite state machine)

> * Comments (allows commenting on the documentation)
>>
>
> I think the most important advantage of comments is to interact with users
> who can't be reached otherwise (because they aren't subscribed to mailing
> lists for example). The biggest disadvantage is however that someone has to
> interact with users. If users add comments and nobody replies, it's better
> not to have comments at all. :)

Agree.

>
>
> * Chats (allows discussing issues and solutions)
>>
>
> I guess it's a bit similar as with comments.
>
> Personally I like to see social features being added to the website (and
> if only temporary for a test). For us who we are subscribed to mailing
> lists it may seem unnecessary. But I believe there are lots of users out
> there we could interact with more easily if there were social features on
> the website.
>

I think so too. Especially, users not familair with boost as much. Gitter
for hana and di show that users are willing to use them which is great.

>
> My two cents,
> Boris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>