4 ms·
Reading info is fantastic, I agree. But writing it is a traumatic experience. There are also no converters to info from many of the common markdown derivatives.
by pmr_ 13y ago
Reading info is fantastic, I agree. But writing it is a traumatic experience. There are also no converters to info from many of the common markdown derivatives. You cannot even reliably generate it from in-source Emacs Lisp comments which doubles the maintenance effort for most elisp code.
This is also less about the tools themselves but the mind-share they have. FOSS projects need a steady flow of new contributors to replace old ones and to get new steam. Switching to tools that are more likely to be known by a younger generation of programmers makes this easier. This applies to the git migration as well.
- teddyh 13y agoI happen to know that Sphinx (the de-facto standard format for Python) can be converted to Info.
- davexunit 13y ago>But writing it is a traumatic experience. texinfo is pretty nice. Many GNU projects use this for their manuals. That way you can create a printed manual, an HTML manual, and an info manual from the same source. >You cannot even reliably generate it from in-source Emacs Lisp comments which doubles the maintenance effort for most elisp code. Good code comments do not make a good manual. A manual needs to do much more. I don't really believe in generating docs from docstrings in source code. I am surprised that you can't bootstrap a manual with the docstrings, though. That's unfortunate. I was able to do so rather easily with Guile. I think that this new generation of programmers (which I am included in) should learn that Markdown is inadequate for large documents. Oh, and I am in full support of the git migration.