Walter Bright Wrote: > dsimcha wrote: > > == Quote from Adam Ruppe ([email protected])'s article > >> To me, the biggest appeal of ddoc is that it doesn't require markup to > >> give good enough results. It's almost mindless to use. > > > > Not only that, because it doesn't require markup, the docs look good as > > plain text > > comments, not just when processed into HTML. > > That wasn't by accident :-). One of the explicit major goals of Ddoc was to > not > require any markup unless you are getting into more advanced use of it. Some > of > the design was compromised to make that work, but I think the results are > worth it.
Unlike doxygen, Ddoc almost accepts plain english. It's not hard to see how much better designed Ddoc is *for D code*. A generic document generator can never support unit tests, contracts and so forth. I disagree with our ''retard'' completely.
