Talk:D Programming

Book name
This book should probably be renamed from "Programming:D" to "D Programming", as per Staff_lounge. (Note that there's a bot to do the work.)

-- Kwi | Talk 12:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with you. The more appropriate name for this book would be "D Programming".
 * -- Markus

I have renamed the book, replacing "Programming:D" with "D Programming" in all page names.

Additionally, I've taken the liberty to rename the following pages in accordance with what seems to be the accepted style (compare, for instance, C Programming). See the section below.


 * Programming:D/Documentation Comments -> D Programming/Documentation comments (Avoiding title case for chapters, except when the chapter title actually refers to the title of e.g. a product.)
 * Programming:D/GNU D Compiler (GDC) -> D Programming/GNU D Compiler (Dropping the "(GDC)" bit from the chapter title.)
 * Programming:D/Digitalmars D (DMD) -> D Programming/Digital Mars D compiler (Dropping the "(DMD)" bit from the chapter title, and changing "Digitalmars" to the proper "Digital Mars".)
 * Programming:D/Phobos/std.stdio -> D Programming/std.stdio (Flattening the structure; see "Style" below.)
 * Programming:D/DFL -> D Programming/D Forms Library
 * Programming:D/GC -> D Programming/Garbage collector (Expanding abbreviations. D Programming/DWT remains abbreviated though... wasn't sure about that.)

RTAI was left alone, as it seems to be a book-in-the-book, except for:
 * Programming:D/RTAI/Accessing PCI Hardware -> D Programming/RTAI/Accessing PCI hardware (Dropping title case, again.)

--Kwi | Talk 11:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Style
In the interest of settling on one style before the book (hopefully) grows large, I propose the following guidelines:


 * No title-case in page titles and headlines, except when the title actually refers to the title of e.g. a product.
 * So, "GNU D Compiler", as that's the name of the product, but "Digital Mars D compiler" with lowercase "compiler", as the word is merely a descriptor. ("Digital Mars" is, of course, a name, as is "D".)


 * In page titles: Expand all, or most, abbreviations. (Rather vague, I know.)
 * So, "Garbage collector", not "GC". It seems to me that grey areas include, for instance, "DWT"... use the abbreviation, or spell it out?


 * Avoid subpages (aka "use flat structure").
 * The "D Programming/" part is mandated by Wikibooks, but we should avoid creating sub-sub-pages for structuring. (On the other hand, a page called "D Programming/TCP/IP with D" would be OK.)
 * I refer to w:Wikipedia:Subpages, "Do not use subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia.", or Case against subpages.
 * Though there is, of course, a huge difference between Wikibooks and Wikipedia, and not all WP arguments hold here, there's the "Subpage titles are ugly" if nothing else. :-)


 * Generally, have Wikipedia's Manual of Style apply, where it make sense for a wikibook.

--Kwi | Talk 11:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Revamp
I don't mean this offensively, but this book is completely ridiculous. It's no way to learn D unless you're a compiler. It needs to be completely erased and restarted from scratch, starting with a good, logical TOC. I don't really want to just delete this book outright, so I may start another one (does wikibooks let you do that? Have two books on one topic?). Or, I may get lazy :)
 * No offense taken. This book is more of a 'Reference Manual' rather than a 'How To Program in ...' style of book. I can't see that another book on D, from the perspective of teaching how to use the language, is a bad idea. Derek Parnell 02:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For what little my opinion is worth here, I think that creating a second book on D is a bad idea: We can't even fill the first book with information! Instead, I think a better idea would be to fix what is already here: Add new chapters to this book if you need, or include better information in the chapters that already exist. Starting a new book is a big project, and isn't something that people should attempt without a very very good reason for doing it. If you create a second book on the same subject, they will probably just get merged together in the future anyway, so I would save the effort. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Whiteknight and I don't understand why a reference manual is needed. What would be the difference to Walter Bright's D manual (except for some things missing there, e.g. the full D ABI)? The TOC looks already very similar to Walter's manual. I would propose to generate a guide for beginners in computer programming instead. I have made a few initial changes on D_Programming/Types which you can think about or throw away. --Mbutscher 19:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In my infinite lack of wisdom, I have started another book. A Beginner's Guide to D. --GregorR 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, guys. This book looks like a reference to the D programming language and it is very similar to the Walter Bright's D manual. I think that this book should be rewritten. Then you      should decide whether this book must be intended for beginners or intermediate D programming users. As i see, "A Beginner's Guide to D" by GregorR will be a good book for beginners. Therefore you could create a book for intermediate level or a complete d programming book combining begining, intermediate, and advanced levels. What do you think? --MarkusD 5:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend to create a book for all from beginners to advanced users with most weight to beginners because the well seasoned programmers who want to learn D will probably be happy with Walter's manual (plus maybe some D specific tricks and idioms not described there). I recommend also to decide to work on one book, either this or Gregor's. Splitting our energy here doesn't make sense --Mbutscher 19:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should have to even create multiple books for "beginners" or "advanced programmers". Wiki isn't paper, and we can make a single "book" with multiple sections for different audiences. We can have a "beginners" section with basic chapters, we can have an "advanced" section for seasoned programmers, and we can have a "reference" section, all in the same book! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea, Whiteknight. I absolutely agree with you. --MarkusD 5:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC).