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) |
Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ amoroso@mclink.it (1997-05-12) |
Re: Extending javadoc for C/C++ r.m.muench@ieee.org (1997-05-13) |
From: | Norman Ramsey <nr@adder.cs.virginia.edu> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Followup-To: | comp.programming.literate |
Date: | 8 May 1997 01:03:45 -0400 |
Organization: | University of Virginia |
References: | 97-05-010 |
Keywords: | C, C++, documentation |
Steve Masticola <masticol@scr.siemens.com> wrote:
> Hi, all,
> I've been looking into embedded documentation mechanisms for C/C++...
> ...
> - 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.*
> ...
> * 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.]
I can't resist an opening like this :-)
CWEB is a *terrible* competitor, precisely because it's far too
complicated. The best implementations literate programming are noweb
and nuweb, which both offer sane, simple realizations of Knuth's idea.
Much more about this in the comp.programming.literate FAQ (where I've
set followups), or in http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~nr/noweb/.
Norman
--
Norman Ramsey
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~nr
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.