5 ms·
A quick glance suggests this seems a little more flexible then doxygen or cweb in terms of what you can annotate, but it seems like it could have been built to
by lsiebert 12y ago
A quick glance suggests this seems a little more flexible then doxygen or cweb in terms of what you can annotate, but it seems like it could have been built to expand on doxygen/javadoc syntax, whereas this looks like it reinvents the wheel when it comes to annotation. It seems like compatibility with doxygen + additional features might be a better choice, especially since, as a new js program, it may be slower then doxygen, which is mature and compiled from C++, when running on big/complex files.
That said it looks well-documented and mature.
- hoveringGoats 12y agoAh, but which should doczar be compatible with, doxygen or javadoc? A fundamental frustration I have with both of these projects is that their syntax is designed to annotate the results of a syntax scanner in their primary language, not to describe a structure from the ground up. I could potentially have worked from the syntax of an established "generalist" project such as NaturalDocs, but most of these were designed to mimic javadoc syntax. Regarding performance, I've fed it some nasty directories and generation time is trivial. Doczar generates docs as fast as your hard drive can move them. Thanks for looking!
- lsiebert 12y agodoxygen supports more languages then javadoc, but it definitely shows a preference for c family languages, so I feel you. Glad to here performance isn't an issue though.