| |||||||||||||
Doxygen?Doxygen?Posted Jun 24, 2010 14:22 UTC (Thu) by kraftcheck (guest, #35072)Parent article: Coming soon: Sphinx 1.0
How does this compare to existing tools such as doxygen?
(Log in to post comments)
Doxygen? Posted Jun 24, 2010 15:24 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] I'm not hugely familiar with doxygen, but my understanding is that it's heavily oriented toward reference manuals with the text actually included within the source itself. Sphinx manuals are separate entities. My sense is that Sphinx would be better if there is a lot of text aside from the source documentation itself, but I'm not speaking from a position of great experience.
Doxygen? Posted Jun 25, 2010 8:13 UTC (Fri) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
Doxygen pulls everything out of the code and works fully automatic AFAIK.
sphynx works on a bit more semiautomatic way (which leads to way prettier and better understandable documentation). You can have a class or a function be autodocumented, but you can also easily drop unneeded functions that draw attention away from how the code really works, or from API that is supposed to be non-public. You can easily reorder the way functions are listed, you can add introductory (or inbetween) text and comments.
Sphynx can provide more of a reference book with a structure that you can decide on, yet it pulls out as much (or little) autodocumentation from out of the source code, so you don't have to duplicate documentation.
|
|||||||||||||