Re: Doxygen documentation

[Stefan Bidi]

The main reason I'm suggesting doxygen is because it is, like it or not, the de facto documentation generator for open source projects.  It has the additional advantage of being much more powerful than autogsdoc, readily available for every platform GNUstep supports, and can be extensively customized.  As a bonus the base packages (without GUI and Latex support) only depends on system libraries.

I don't mean to be negative, but I find appledoc to be a horrible alternative to autogsdoc.  It's available on even less platforms than autogsdoc (only officially supported on Mac OS X), isn't customizable, and could be a maintenance nightmare since we'd have to keep a patch set if the appledoc people decided not to support a port to GNUstep.

If the consensus is, in fact, to continue with autogsdoc that's fine.

Stef

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Gregory Casamento <greg.casamento@gmail.com> wrote:

Bob,

This does indeed look cool!  GNUstep does eat it's own dogfood in the sense that autogsdoc is written using objective c and the cocoa apis.

The same issue with moving to doxygen presents itself in this case.   There is an enormous amount of code to change.

But this is a better suggestion, in my opinion, than doxygen.   I, personally, don't like doxygens output.

G

On Thursday, September 22, 2011, Thomas Davie <tom.davie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 21 Sep 2011, at 22:52, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>>
>>> 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.
>> Well, i also think that projects gravitating around gnustep.org should use all the same document generator. Thus I think using autogsdoc is a good thing for other projects too and that is what I use and recommend for all GAP projects.
>>
>> it's a bit like most people use javadoc with java. It's the the standard one.
>
> Just a heads up, given the scope of gnustep, if it were to change to a different documentation tool, appledoc might be a sane one to consider.  It uses doxygen style comments, but produces much nicer (and more apple documentation like) output:
>
> http://www.gentlebytes.com/home/appledocapp/
>
> It's also written in Obj-C and Cocoa, so if GNUstep could eat this dog food it might be a nice flag to fly.
>
> Bob

> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>

--
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