Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] ATTENTION: Library requirements..
From: Artyom Beilis (artyom.beilis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-01-07 09:05:32

>> Plus, all major browsers support JavaScript now, so I see this restriction
>> as being outdated.
> That might address one of the reasons given for banning it, namely:
> - Incompatible with some older browsers and some text based browsers.
> What's your take on the remaining ones?
> - Makes printing docs pages difficult.
> - Often results in really bad user interface design.
> - "It's just annoying in general."
> - Would require Boost to test web pages for ECMAScript/JavaScript
> compliance.
> - Makes docs maintenance by other than the original developer more
> difficult.
> Regards,
> --
> Agustín K-ballo Bergé.-

This is another reason why "banning" is bad, it is like banning exceptions
in C++ is bad because some programmers do not aware of exception safety.


It has very nice navigation bar that works very well and helps a lot in
browsing. Yet if you disable JS you still get perfectly nice menus+navigation
that work without any issues.

See it isn't question of banning it is question of HOW to use JavaScript.

If you take documentation sources in some kind of Json/XML or Markdown
and convert it on the fly to some nice format with JavaScript to make it fancy
yes it is bad. However if you use JavaScript to Enhance usability of the
documentation it is very good.

Some guys who really know about writing documentation (these behind Doxygen)
generally know what to do very well. They do incorporate JavaScript because
it good and enhances the user experience, If you ban it you just don't do
justice to all people who's major project is actually creating tools
for documentation.

The fact that quick-book does not incorporate JavaScript isn't "good" it is just
the way stuff is done.

Bottom line instead of "Banning JavaScript" require the documentation to
be printable and usable without it.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at