3 ms·
Not the OP, but one thing that stands out for me is the (lack of) quality of the documentation. It reads more like a book (that tries to explain how to do thing
by rob74 5y ago
Not the OP, but one thing that stands out for me is the (lack of) quality of the documentation. It reads more like a book (that tries to explain how to do things) than a reference (an exhaustive list of all classes, methods, parameters etc.). Ok, it's nice to have the former, but the latter would be far more important!
- raziel2p 5y agoIf you think so, it's available here: https://laravel.com/api/master/ https://laravel.com/api/master/
- bdcravens 5y agoDoes Laravel have anything akin to the Rails Guides? (ie, higher level based on what you want to do, rather than API-level documentation)
- vanviegen 5y agoThat does seem very, uhh, minimalistic, if that's supposed to be the reference documentation. Just one very short sentence per method. Most arguments are unexplained. No examples that I could find.
- yurishimo 5y agoI'm not sure what you're trying to find. The main Laravel docs are fine for 90% of what you would want to do. If you're digging into the core of some internal class trying to decide if you can re-use something elsewhere, that seems edge-case-y. The ORM, relationship model, templating, and routing are all thoroughly documented in the main docs. If you want to find out what obscure methods might be available for your custom package, you're probably competent enough to parse the auto-generated code docs or read the source directly (which is also very clear and well organized).
- dabernathy89 5y agoIt's actually not unreasonable to expect something that exists between the main documentation and the automated API documentation. Sounds like a great idea for someone to build and contribute back to the community!