p5.js-website
p5.js-website copied to clipboard
processing
Question: why does editor example use non-free, non-open-source option?
very valid point. a PR is welcome from anyone that wants to update this for another editor. maybe brackets or atom?
The web IDE should definitely be linked but we should additionally guide those that want a local setup. Documentation like this is a low cost for us and helps new users tremendously.
@brysonian @Zalastax the web editor is linked at the top and instructs viewers to skip the first setup section if they have it. let me know if you have thoughts if this doesn't seem clear enough.
Instructions for Atom would be good... But the logic of the page is a bit off to me. Perhaps it should start with the web-editor instructions, but include a link near the top, something like 'using standalone editors', which then goes to the bottom, where one finds the 'Download and File Setup' section, Atom instructions (possibly Brackets as well), links to other editors, etc ?
@sanketsingh24 have you started this already or may I make a PR? If you're busy, then I can do it.
@GaurangTandon Yea caught up in some work, you can take it up if you want to.
i also want to throw out vscode as an option too, since it is also open source and has a better "out of the box" for javascript than atom in most cases.
@outofambit I agree with what you've said. VS Code is my primary editor and I can affirm how fluid it's support for JS is.
However, from what I've read, the distribution through the website (code.visualstudio.com) is proprietary under Microsoft, while if you build the source code yourself only then it's under the open source license. I believe most of the beginners will take the former route. Hence, Atom seems to be a better choice in this regard.
@GaurangTandon thanks for sharing that, I didn't know about that distinction! Upon further reading it seems the source code at github.com/microsoft/vscode is open source under the MIT license, but the distribution you download from microsoft has some additional things, that seem pretty minor to me. This is definitely a grey area and I'd still lean towards using vscode, but I don't feel strongly and would be curious to hear other's perspectives.
I read the link, and you are right the differences feel too minor. I too would lean towards using VSCode as an option.
The release is fine. The release itself shouldn't cause any problems. We can update the main reference description language if you would like.
I don't think there is time to make the switch to parsing the one-line descriptions from the JSDoc comment. As of now, the first sentence is being used currently. We can make switching that out for the new one-line description a nice-to-have after the other important work is in place.
That's great to hear. All of the one-line description is the first sentence for each reference item. We are only aiming to update the main reference description, so we can finish translate most reference items. The JSDoc switch will happen later @limzykenneth @davepagurek
The reference has been updated with #237 . It should be reflected on the staging website in about 15 or so minutes (once the Github Pages build finishes).