|Extending javadoc for C/C++ email@example.com (1997-05-03)|
|Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ kelley@Phys.Ocean.Dal.Ca (1997-05-08)|
|Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-05-08)|
|Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ email@example.com (Norman Ramsey) (1997-05-08)|
|Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-05-08)|
|Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ email@example.com (1997-05-08)|
|Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-05-12)|
|[2 later articles]|
|From:||email@example.com (Steve Masticola)|
|Date:||3 May 1997 00:48:40 -0400|
|Organization:||I speak only for myself.|
|Keywords:||C, C++, documentation|
I've been looking into embedded documentation mechanisms for C/C++,
and have come to a couple of conclusions:
- javadoc is the most widely-accepted mechanism for embedded
documentation in C-like languages.
- The best competitor, Don Knuth's "literate programming" and CWEB
(http://www-cs-faculty.Stanford.EDU/~knuth/books.html) have not taken
off in widespread practice, for whatever reason.*
In any case, is anyone working on extending javadoc to C/C++, and/or
building an extractor that doesn't rely on the Java sandbox? It's not
quite sufficient for languages where not everything is a class.
- Steve Masticola
Siemens Corporate Research
* My personal belief is that Knuth violated a dictum of software
evangelism: "As far as I'm concerned, if something is so complicated
that you can't explain it in 10 seconds, then it's probably not worth
knowing anyway." ["Calvin's Axiom," from Calvin and Hobbes.]
Most working programmers tend to operate as if Calvin's Axiom was
true. And if you can't hook them in 10 seconds, they assume that
there's no "there" there.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.