Related articles |
---|
Extending javadoc for C/C++ masticol@scr.siemens.com (1997-05-03) |
Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ kelley@Phys.Ocean.Dal.Ca (1997-05-08) |
Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ dwight@pentasoft.com (1997-05-08) |
Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ nr@adder.cs.virginia.edu (Norman Ramsey) (1997-05-08) |
Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ richardm@cogs.susx.ac.uk (1997-05-08) |
Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ objsoft@netcom.com (1997-05-08) |
Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ ercs50@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (1997-05-12) |
[2 later articles] |
From: | masticol@scr.siemens.com (Steve Masticola) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 3 May 1997 00:48:40 -0400 |
Organization: | I speak only for myself. |
Keywords: | C, C++, documentation |
Hi, all,
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.
Thanks,
- 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
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.