Talk:Comparison of documentation generators

message: It seem that none of the software support Unix Shell Scripts, there should be some ?
--RzR 14:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROBODoc can be configured to support it. --Thuffir Hawat 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: HeaderDoc also supports them. Dgatwood (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Doxygen also supports VHDL Xiotd (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Other language 

message: Does ROBODoc support ActionScript?  Its website doesn't say it does  and Google doesn't return anything relevant. 137.48.130.200 23:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROBODoc can be configured to support virtually any language that allows remarks --Thuffir Hawat 14:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ROBODoc language support, disputed

message: Sphinx  looks promising.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.173.10 (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sphinx

message: What is the difference between Yes and Partial on the Language support table, or is it even defined?  For example, I've been using Natural Docs since 2003.  To me, full language support means that the parser itself can recognize the syntax for functions and classes of a particular language (in this case ActionScript 2.0, C#, and Perl) while partial language support means that it can only recognize the comment style.  Perhaps this is defined differently for a Doxygen user, however...  68.226.61.4 06:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language support, Yes vs. Partial?

message: The present article looks remarkably like the table I assembled and announced in 2003.  I wonder if the article was based on my table; comparison would tell.
My team ended up writing custom VB.NET code to convert our C++ API sources to C# to compile in Visual Studio and then, we customized nDoc XSLT to produce an MSDN-style .chm file.  This approach enabled storing documentation in the C++ API source code using the C# /// XML markup, which is good because standard -- however, I came to prefer the more stripped-down syntax like Javadoc instead of needlessly verbose angle-brackets.  Visual Studio compensates by constructing the initial tagging, but still, that tagging is clunky-looking and verbose.
The present article needs to be checked against my table:
http://www.hypertextnavigation.com/autodoctools.htm
-- user: MichaelSHoffman, Aug. 8 2006
This article is missing the SandCastle Tool from Microsoft.
131.107.0.73 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Apps from 2003 to Sync 

message: Technically, Sandcastle doesn't produce CHM output because the HTML Help Workshop is still required to do that.  It does however produce CHM-ready HTML files using the built-in presentation styles.  Also, Sandcastle produces MS Help 2-ready HTML files by inserting an XML island into each topic.  Help 2.x should be noted as a documentation type if CHM is noted - the Help 2 metadata is actually used to make the HTML files CHM-ready as an additional step in the build process (via ChmBuilder.exe).  It's also probably worth noting (as I see that it's noted for other tools) that Sandcastle is fully XSLT-based and therefore may be customized to produce any type of XML-based format.  All of these facts are in the Sandcastle blog.
Dave Sexton (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandcastle 

message: I can't see any value to keeping a seperate List of documentation generators article.  Merge the (few) entries from there that aren't in this article, and redirect to here.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: What's up with the custom table colors used on this page? Anyone else besides me think these should be changed to the standard wikitable colors? I think that change would make the document more readable, if nothing else. Wrldwzrd89talk 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and fixed the table colors to be more standard. I think it's easier to tell Yes entries from No entries, now. Wrldwzrd89talk 17:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table colors 

message: It would be nice to have an overview of important tags or tagging conventions. It might be possible e.g. to note Doxygen tags in a form understandable to Javadoc, too (when using @ instead of the backslash as a prefix). --Tobias (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important tags overview 

message: Should we include literate programming tools to the article? If so, perhaps we also need to add keys for it, for example "allows non-compiler order code", because that is the selling point of the literate programing practice. It would also differentiate literate programming tools from the pure documentation tools.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.115.177 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include Literate programming? 

message: Do other people think that C preprocessing is worth adding to the features table? Dgatwood (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Additional Features? 

message: In the table indicating language support for each of these tools, Fortran is not included. It would be great if the table included Fortran 77, Fortran 90, and Fortran 2003 information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.250.246 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortran Language Support 

message: Can someone add info about jsDuck?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggrnd0 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  JsDuck 

message: Why is Swagger not on this page? It's one of the most commonly use document generators...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.116.227 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swagger? 

message: I have not used perldoc much but it does output to HTML does it output to any other formats?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.1.101 (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perldoc Outputs 

message: It seems like pandoc only converts between many different document formats but it doesn't actually generate documentation from code.Douira100 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this sentiment and think it should be removed from the list. Even the wiki page on pandoc calls it a document converter, not a generator. Hrs70 (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is pandoc even a documentation generator? 

message: The Rust language also has a documentation generator, called rustdoc. It would make sense to have it in this list.
138.47.150.184 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  rustdoc? 

message: Somehow many tools claim to support CHM native, while they probably only do indirect via a CHM compiler. I put fpdoc as native, as it directly writes a .CHM (using threaded compression).
2A02:A458:C30A:1:C4D9:ABEB:259E:2030 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHM support