Johannes Pfau Wrote: > On 16.08.2010 22:36, lurker wrote: > > > > This is unbelievable douchebaggery. The default ddoc IS good enough for > > most of us. There is simply no need for more complex tools. I think ddoc > > hits the sweet spot here by providing semi-professional looking html > > documents. Like someone said earlier, you can always spent a week worth of > > time creating a better tool for document generation. > > > > Doxygen STILL doesn't support D. What does this tell? It tells that C++ is > > crappy for software development. The millions of C++ users haven't been > > able to write a docgen support for D. It's just not possible. OTOH a > > qualified compiler veteran such as Walter wrote a better tool in less than > > a week, blindfolded. > > What's the point of this post? > I never wanted to replace ddoc in any way - the syntax is the best > documentation syntax that I've seen, the WYSIWYG ideology is great and > it's great that ddoc can output to different formats. If it sounded like > I was flaming or something, I did not want to. (I agree, the last point > about <,> is quite hypothetical)
Whatever. I feel insulted. :-( > > But there are little problems with ddoc - I mentioned a few, some more > are already known and some of these might even exist in doxygen as well. > (I don't know doxygen and I always thought it's generated documentation > looks ugly. I only know the msdn / ndoc / qooxdoo.org api documentation > which IMHO beat doxygen) Sure most of these issues are often not > important. But if it's possible why not fix these? Why is spending one > week (of my time) to enhance ddoc (and fix the known bugs, I want to > provide a fix for the known problem with stray parenthesis in the next > few days) a bad thing? Fixing problems is good, but when creating documentation the main focus is on communicating ideas. All kinds of fancy colors just distract people. I like default Phobos docs. It's hard to find something as simple from other language communities. The C++ documentation sucks so much that I mostly read dead tree books. And I think simple macros are better than tons of semicolon rules. > > BTW: what do you consider to be "default ddoc"? I agree that the phobos > documentation is fine, but there is no default ".ddoc" file shipped with > dmd and the documentation generated without a special .ddoc file is not > that great. I meant that one or candydoc.
