Re: Doxygen documentation

[Gregory Casamento]

Riccardo,

Just my $0.02 for what it's worth....

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Riccardo Mottola
<riccardo.mottola@libero.it> wrote:
> Hi,

<...SNIP...>

>
> indeed, I love that you can go into Documentation and do "make install".
> Besides, autogsdoc has also tex support and other outputs.

Strictly speaking there's nothing which would prevent you from doing
this with doxygen.    It seems that the output for Objective-C using
Doxygen isn't so bad, if you look here:

http://www.duckrowing.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Docs/html/interface_miscellaneous.html

>From this blog:

http://www.duckrowing.com/2010/03/18/documenting-objective-c-with-doxygen-part-i/

> Sure it could be enhanced in some parts, like highlighting certain methods,
> but I'm quite satisfied with it.

Pros and cons of using doxygen project wide:

Pros...
Doxygen...
1) appears to have more attractive output than autogsdoc in some respects
2)  is not maintained by us so we don't need to worry about maintenance.

Cons...
1) Switching to doxygen would require us to change all of our existing
documentation to use doxygen's format instead of our own.  IIRC they
are quite similar, but nevertheless this is an effort
2) Doxygen is not something that we control.  We would have to go
through committee in order to change anything about it.   So,
effectively our documentation's look and feel would be at the mercy of
someone else.

In my opinion, even though the pro of us not maintaining it is
attractive, the #2 Con is unacceptable.   I would say that, unless
there is a compelling reason to switch in the future, that we should
keep doing what we're doing.

> Riccardo

GC
-- 
Gregory Casamento - GNUstep Lead/Principal Consultant, OLC, Inc.
yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa
(240)274-9630 (Cell)