Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Friday, 19 August 2016 at 07:33:42 UTC, Sebastiaan Koppe wrote: Any chance of it becoming official? Not directly, the core team is married to their old ways.

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Friday, 19 August 2016 at 15:10:55 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: Guys if you have too much free time, go fix some compiler bugs. :D First we'll have to generate the documentation for it :)

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On 08/19/2016 02:50 AM, karabuta wrote: >> Sigh. Eventually we're just reinventing Markdown in ddoc. Why can't >> we just use Markdown (with some ddoc extensions) in the first place? >> >> >> T > > That will be way better, don't know why markdown is not used already. There is

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

Am Fri, 19 Aug 2016 07:34:51 -0700 schrieb "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" : > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:50:20AM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 17:23:09 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 04:56:32PM +,

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:50:20AM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 17:23:09 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 04:56:32PM +, ketmar via Digitalmars-d > > wrote: > > > On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 16:17:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > > >

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Friday, 19 August 2016 at 02:52:54 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Yeah. I'm being a bit facetious there: I actually already did it and the result is on my dpldocs.info site. There's still a few rough edges that I'm working on slowly but surely, but the bulk of the work has been done for a

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 17:23:09 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 04:56:32PM +, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 16:17:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > if the stub reads: > > /** > * THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN > *

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Friday, 19 August 2016 at 02:52:54 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: Yeah. I'm being a bit facetious there: I actually already did it and the result is on my dpldocs.info site. There's still a few rough edges that I'm working on slowly but surely, but the bulk of the work has been done for a

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Friday, 19 August 2016 at 02:49:41 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote: We should be able to automate this task if we do decide to move away from it. Can't be harder than converting C++ to D, right? Yeah. I'm being a bit facetious there: I actually already did it and the result is on my

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Friday, 19 August 2016 at 01:32:55 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 23:50:34 UTC, karabuta wrote: That will be way better, don't know why markdown is not used already. ddoc is *significantly* older than markdown, especially for popular use. When ddoc came out,

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 23:50:34 UTC, karabuta wrote: That will be way better, don't know why markdown is not used already. ddoc is *significantly* older than markdown, especially for popular use. When ddoc came out, *it* was the "clean" syntax for inline docs. But then Walter fell

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 23:14:44 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:02:09AM +0200, Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] By the way, AFAIK someone implemented `code` as an alternative to $(D code) quite a while ago. So you can use that instead. I'd like

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 23:14:44 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:02:09AM +0200, Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] By the way, AFAIK someone implemented `code` as an alternative to $(D code) quite a while ago. So you can use that instead. I'd like

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:02:09AM +0200, Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > By the way, AFAIK someone implemented `code` as an alternative to $(D > code) quite a while ago. So you can use that instead. I'd like > ordered/unordered lists to also follow markup style one day. I find it >

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

Am Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:59:08 + schrieb Chris : > On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 14:31:47 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > It would be a good starting point for documentation stubs, not a > substitute for a proper, full-fledged documentation. The most > annoying thing about

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 04:56:32PM +, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 16:17:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > if the stub reads: > > > > /** > > * THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN > > * Params: > > * x = THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 16:17:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: /** * THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN * Params: * x = THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN * y = THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN * Returns:

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 16:17:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: if the stub reads: /** * THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN * Params: * x = THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN * y = THE PROGRAMMER WAS TOO LAZY TO FILL THIS IN

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 15:38:03 UTC, Chris wrote: However, this would be very useful as a stub. and it will stay as stub forever. more than that: with autogenerated stubs people will start answer: "stop complaining about documentation! i have each my function documented, can't you

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 03:38:03PM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 15:12:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > Nah, this kind of so-called "documentation" is no better than > > reading the code itself. It's just like code comments that basically > > repeat what the

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 15:12:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Nah, this kind of so-called "documentation" is no better than reading the code itself. It's just like code comments that basically repeat what the code does, which is useless because you can already read the code. What you

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 01:19:13PM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > Isn't there a way to auto-generate a minimal documentation with the > help of the compiler? As in > > int myFunction(int a, int b) > { > if (a > -1) > return a + b; > return -1; > } > > // auto-gen: >

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 14:59:08 UTC, Chris wrote: It would be a good starting point for documentation stubs, not a substitute for a proper, full-fledged documentation. Oh yeah, if it was in the source itself, I can see the point of that. IDEs can and probably should do that at least.

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 14:59:08 UTC, Chris wrote: (unit) 0 || index + 1, that is.

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 14:31:47 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 13:19:13 UTC, Chris wrote: Isn't there a way to auto-generate a minimal documentation with the help of the compiler? As in I think that would be useless for anything other than toy functions. You

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 13:19:13 UTC, Chris wrote: Isn't there a way to auto-generate a minimal documentation with the help of the compiler? As in I think that would be useless for anything other than toy functions. You can just view the source and learn more than that. Good

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 13:19:13 UTC, Chris wrote: Isn't there a way to auto-generate a minimal documentation with the help of the compiler? As in int myFunction(int a, int b) { if (a > -1) return a + b; return -1; } // auto-gen: Returns `int`, if `a` is greater than -1, else

Re: [OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 12:20:01 UTC, Seb wrote: On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 11:28:10 UTC, Chris wrote: Warning - this is has gone quite off-topic, so before you start to criticize the following sentence, let's better focus on the bigger issue here: documentation for most D packages

[OT] of [OT] I am a developer and I hate documentation

On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 11:28:10 UTC, Chris wrote: On Thursday, 18 August 2016 at 09:49:17 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Documentation is like sex. When it's good, it's very good. When it's bad. it's still better than nothing. Your comparison is not 100% correct. While those who