Andrei's Google Talk

[lurker]

Walter Bright Wrote:

> dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from Adam Ruppe (destructionator at gmail.com)'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.