Boost logo

Boost :

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: Kris (krzysztof_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-24 12:50:02

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 6:39:52 AM UTC-6, Krzysztof Jusiak wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Andrey Semashev <andrey....@
&gt; <javascript:>
> > wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Steven Watanabe &lt;watan...@
&gt; <javascript:>>
> > wrote:
> > > AMDG
> > > On 02/23/2016 10:43 AM, Krzysztof Jusiak wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Steven Watanabe &lt;watan...@
&gt; <javascript:>>
> > >> 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 ->
> 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.
> Mkdocs can use pygments to highlight code blocks statically. However, I've
> found that highlight.js does a much better job at highlighting. It seems
> pygments would get confused by C++ syntax easily.

> 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!

> But how does the documentation deal with versioning? When you go back to a
> previous version how does all the interaction work then? Also, how does it
> work with offline documentation browsing such as Dash/Zeal?

Thanks. It's a really valid point. Well, chats and comments do not refer to
any version so, I guess, they are okay. Code to be ran is taken from github
and is using a specific version, so it's not an issue too.
Actually, everything is prepared to add a button next to compile button with
all versions available where
user can change the version and verify the behavior. I haven't added it yet,
because I have really one version of the library so far.

Other option is to maintain different versions of the documentation for
different releases as Boost is doing either way. The only thing which would
be different is the fact that code examples will point to a specific

If it comes to offline browsing, I'm not sure actually. I will check it out
tho. Either way for offline browsing either via pdf or dash/zeal a static
version would have to be generated, which is not a big deal and I can
provide that.

> 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:
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Unsubscribe & other changes:

View this message in context:
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at

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