Talk:Comparison of documentation generators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of documentation generators article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: classdoc, CppDoc, KDOC (documentation generator), NDoc, VBDOX Merge: List of documentation generators Cleanup: Language support table (discriminate between Yes and Partial) Expand: Include in table Document! X, Eiffeldoc, HappyDoc, JDiff, PHPDoc, WEB Stubs: Documentation generator, Doc-O-Matic, Doxygen, HeaderDoc, Natural Docs, ROBODoc, TwinText, VBdocman Update: General information (periodically)

Contents 1 ROBODoc language support, disputed 2 Language support, Yes vs. Partial? 3 Table of Apps from 2003 to Sync 4 Merging

[edit] ROBODoc language support, disputed

Does ROBODoc support ActionScript? Its website doesn't say it does [1] and Google doesn't return anything relevant. 137.48.130.200 23:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language support, Yes vs. Partial?

What is the difference between Yes and Partial on the Language support table, or is it even defined? For example, I've been using Natural Docs since 2003. To me, full language support means that the parser itself can recognize the syntax for functions and classes of a particular language (in this case ActionScript 2.0, C#, and Perl) while partial language support means that it can only recognize the comment style. Perhaps this is defined differently for a Doxygen user, however... 68.226.61.4 06:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add a fourth yellow choice called "Manual" which refers to systems (like Natural Docs without full language support) that only accepts things you write for it. I suspect ROBODoc and TwinText are the same way as they're Yes for almost everything as well. A note can be added underneath explaining what it means. I think DDoc might be manual too, even though it's only one language, but I'm not sure. All the generators will have to be checked for the update to make it fair. Greg10101 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe theoretically ROBODoc can be configured to recognize any language. I also wholeheartedly agree that a link to the manual in these tables would be a nice, helpful addition. john factorial 21:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table of Apps from 2003 to Sync

The present article looks remarkably like the table I assembled and announced in 2003. I wonder if the article was based on my table; comparison would tell.

My team ended up writing custom VB.NET code to convert our C++ API sources to C# to compile in Visual Studio and then, we customized nDoc XSLT to produce an MSDN-style .chm file. This approach enabled storing documentation in the C++ API source code using the C# /// XML markup, which is good because standard -- however, I came to prefer the more stripped-down syntax like Javadoc instead of needlessly verbose angle-brackets. Visual Studio compensates by constructing the initial tagging, but still, that tagging is clunky-looking and verbose.

The present article needs to be checked against my table:

http://www.hypertextnavigation.com/autodoctools.htm

-- user: MichaelSHoffman, Aug. 8 2006

[edit] Merging

I can't see any value to keeping a seperate List of documentation generators article. Merge the (few) entries from there that aren't in this article, and redirect to here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Redundancy, overlap. Tuxide 17:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Merge and redirect as the list is fully detailed, with notes and comparisons being more suited to this article. Ansell 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)