lint for D

[Nick Sabalausky]

"JAnderson" <ask at me.com> wrote in message 
news:g57ss9$n76$2 at digitalmars.com...
> 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.

I don't see any reason why that couldn't also be done with something like 
Ddoc or NaturalDocs.