lint for D

[Nick Sabalausky]

"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.