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: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-24 08:19:23

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.