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 07:39:32

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:
> > AMDG
> > On 02/23/2016 10:43 AM, Krzysztof Jusiak wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> * What does CPP(SPLIT) mean?  CPP, CPP(BTN), and CPP(SHOW) too.
> >>>
> >>
> >> CPP uses Java Script to show the code, highlight it and let it test
> online.
> >
> >   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.

Anyway, on this note, I really do not understand why requirement of Java
Script is such a big thing?
Data shows that only 1-2% of people don't have it enabled either way, so
it's a really small number of people affected.
Almost all pages are using Java Script in some way either way, so why Boost
can't take advantage of it as others languages do?

IMHO, maybe a bit controversial, not being more aggressive with the web
tools available is one of the reasons why
C++ is still considered old fashioned and so hard to work with.

These days we can do so much better, Modern C++ allow us to code in a more
productive way than even before, but it's hard
to show all these benefits for new/old users with a boring/old fashion
documentation.

Therefore, Boost.DI doc is so interactive...
* You can comment on the page
* You have a chat to discuss issues
* Finally you can run the code in your browser!

IMHO this type of documentation is more appealing to the average users as
they can easily see how the library works and how good modern C++ becomes.

What I mean by that, is that they can easily spot that the library...
* Compiles quickly -> you can change it online and see!
* Error messages are short and nice -> again, You can tryi 5 sec and  seen
the result!
* Can be integrated easily -> it's done on the web, how hard it can be?
(Boost.DI therefore is just one header and no dependencies)
* Has support via comments/chats -> You don't have to subscribe to lists
etc...

I think Boost and C++ can win a lot by showing how good Modern C++ is,
especially right now, when languages like Rust/Nim/Go/D
are already showing how easily they are in comparison to OLD C++!
It will come with a bit of cost, like enabling JS, but I think it's the
cost worth taking!

BTW. I would really appreciate comments about the library too.

Cheers, Kris

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