On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Gregory Casamento
<greg.casamento@gmail.com> wrote:
Riccardo,
Just my $0.02 for what it's worth....
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/
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.
I would add a 3: More developers use it over autogsdoc. People are more likely to know doxygen's syntax than autogsdoc's.
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
And the reason I brought this up is because I'm starting to document corebase. Seeing as I'm starting from scratch I'm having a serious look at which doc generator to use. It would probably be a quite large effort move all of current gnustep documentation to doxygen and probably something that wouldn't happen overnight, as you suggest.
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.
This is not entirely true, the output can be extensively modified (see
http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/customize.html). Granted, that's a whole lot more work than just simply using autogsdoc, but it's also just a 1 time effort. Most projects simply use the default, though.
Personally, I think the only major issue is actually moving the documentation. It's easy enough to do on new documentation but a major undertaking for the code we already have documented.
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.
GC
--
Gregory Casamento - GNUstep Lead/Principal Consultant, OLC, Inc.
yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa
(240)274-9630 (Cell)
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep