5 ms·
Awesome idea! I'll experiment with it in my projects. Doxygen is horrible, and looking at your example I can see it's far superior than Doxygen.
by nathanpc 14y ago
Awesome idea! I'll experiment with it in my projects. Doxygen is horrible, and looking at your example I can see it's far superior than Doxygen.
- apaprocki 14y agoThat depends.. it would be more helpful to evaluate comparing to Doxygen if a more meaty C++ example was used. This is our std::vector implementation (below). The STL provides enough meat for any doc generator to chew on... http://bloomberg.github.com/bsl/group__bslstl__vector.html http://bloomberg.github.com/bsl/group__bslstl__vector.html I'm no fan of Doxygen output, but it is used because it has proven to be the most robust for documenting complicated code. edit: links
- jevinskie 14y agoWow, I am green with envy after looking at those docs! I wish the LLVM/Clang doxygen was that nice. You are lucky if you get any comments at all.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- wladimir 14y agoCan you explain why you think that doxygen is horrible?
- nathanpc 14y agoThe HTML output.
- wladimir 14y agoWhat is wrong with that?
- nathanpc 14y agoIt looks like shit.
- wladimir 14y agoDid you know that the output can be customized in many ways, for example using CSS and templates? Many organizations use doxygen for their documentation, even though you wouldn't recognize it at first. Also, whether the tool uses clang or a custom parser doesn't affect the HTML output in any way. I agree that using clang is interesting, but you seem to be depreciating Doxygen for all the wrong reasons.