Andrei's Google Talk

[Johannes Pfau]

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)

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?

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.

-- 
Johannes Pfau