Andrei's Google Talk

[lurker]

Johannes Pfau Wrote:

> 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)

Whatever. I feel insulted. :-(

> 
> 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?

Fixing problems is good, but when creating documentation the main focus is on communicating ideas. All kinds of fancy colors just distract people. I like default Phobos docs. It's hard to find something as simple from other language communities. The C++ documentation sucks so much that I mostly read dead tree books. And I think simple macros are better than tons of semicolon rules.

> 
> 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.

I meant that one or candydoc.