lint for D

[JAnderson]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
> news:g55rle$1uoh$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Bruce Adams wrote:
>>>  From what I hear about ddoc it is vastly inferior to Doxygen (speaking 
>>> as usual from ignorance).
>> Ddoc's purpose is to:
>>
>> 1. set a minimum standard for documentation
>> 2. allow documentation to be written in a typical comment style
>>
>> At that, it has succeeded spectacularly. Prior to Ddoc, for example, the 
>> Phobos documentation stunk.
>>
>> My issue with Doxygen is that:
>>
>> 1. it won't get used consistently (being a third party tool) and so no 
>> minimum standard
>> 2. the documentation comments look like another programming language
> 
> I'm not very familiar with Doxygen, but from the sound of it, it reminds me 
> of the XML-based documentation C# uses. Ie, seems alright by itself, but 
> it's garbage compared to Ddoc. With Ddoc, I can actually read my own 
> comments! Maybe Doxygen and the C#'s thing have extra features, I don't 
> know, but to me I can't imagine it being worth giving up the ability to use 
> a very natural and unobtrusive style when writing my documentation-comments.
> 
> 

Doxygen is a little complicated however it has a huge amount of 
flexibility.  There are some nice GUIs that work on top of Doxygen which 
make things easier.  You just tick a couple of boxes and it creates 
settging for you.  It even allows you to create fancy tree graphics of 
everything in the project.

-Joel