On Thursday, 1 January 2015 at 10:16:01 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
My point here was to give context for ddoc's history. FWIW
switching dlang and phobos now to doxygen would be a major
effort and I'm not sure we'd be in a better place even after
assuming perfect execution.
I don't think the current documentation of phobos is affecting
(professional) D adoption much, although it can improve a lot.
Adoption is a language/compiler/runtime/tooling issue.
On the other hand, if converting phobos' Ddoc into Doxygen cannot
be automated, then that suggests that there is a fundamental
problem with how Ddoc is used as a markup tool.
Adopting Doxygen would give you some benefits:
- it makes D look less weird
- it makes it easier to use existing formatting/presentation
solutions
- it is more motivating to learn Doxygen than figuring out Ddoc
since you can use it for non-D projects
The Doxygen front page advertises the following:
«it also supports other popular programming languages such as C,
Objective-C, C#, PHP, Java, Python, IDL (Corba, Microsoft, and
UNO/OpenOffice flavors), Fortran, VHDL, Tcl, and to some extent
D.»
D would look better without the "to some extend" and you might
get the Doxygen community to help out with Doxygen relevant
tooling issues if it is the default D documentation tool.
Basically an opportunity for synergy.
