1

Topic: Why in IDE do not build in the editor of the documentation?

Here do any XML comments. In my opinion it is stupid. Instead it was necessary to make: 1) the specialized built in editor, for example HTML with review; 2) navigation from any code unit to the page opened on editing in the editor of the documentation.  the source code not  And possibilities on editing would be more: pictures, for example, with charts to see in wysiwyg.

2

Re: Why in IDE do not build in the editor of the documentation?

Hello, Arsen. Shnurkov, you wrote: AS> Here do any XML comments. AS> In my opinion it is stupid. Instead it was necessary to make: AS> 1) the specialized built in editor, for example HTML with review; AS> 2) navigation from any code unit to the page opened on editing in the editor of the documentation. AS>  the source code not  AS> And possibilities on editing would be more: pictures, for example, with charts to see in wysiwyg. And you well looked? https://www.ultimatepp.org/app$ide$Topic$en-us.html

3

Re: Why in IDE do not build in the editor of the documentation?

Hello, Arsen. Shnurkov, you wrote: AS> And possibilities on editing would be more: pictures, for example, with charts to see in wysiwyg. Because at such variant of lacks more than advantages. Pluses any (it is possible and so in any  to write everything and to deliver there the link from the code). And it is a lot of minuses. At least two: - a binding to specific IDE -  documentation with the code as the compiler any more has no possibility to check up the documentation

4

Re: Why in IDE do not build in the editor of the documentation?

Hello, vmpire, you wrote: V> Hello, Arsen. Shnurkov, you wrote: AS>> And possibilities on editing would be more: pictures, for example, with charts to see in wysiwyg. V> Because at such variant of lacks more than advantages. V> pluses any (it is possible and so in any  to write everything and to deliver there the link from the code). V> And minuses it is a lot of. At least two: V> - a binding to specific IDE the Hogwash, always it is possible to export in pdf or a heap html and to pack in chm or to unpack necessary V> -  documentation with the code as the compiler any more has no possibility to check up the documentation So to support synchronization with the code all the same it is necessary at documenting. And then the documentation part should describe at all the code. And that that doxygen  as a rule fierce  not suitable as the documentation, as  on  purely formal

5

Re: Why in IDE do not build in the editor of the documentation?

Hello, vmpire, you wrote: V> And minuses it is a lot of. At least two: V> - the binding to specific IDE already would be time to work out For a long time the standard on function IDE (it is possible on levels - basic type "syntax highlighting", it is more difficult also absolutely difficult), and the general-purpose standard file formats of projects, files of the documentation and other, not concerning directly to a programming language. Or at least in a programming language that projects on With ++ could be opened in any development environment. V> -  with the code as the compiler any more has no possibility to check up the documentation For a long time already it would be time to the documentation that the compiler checked, whether the documentation is coordinated with the code. All that for this purpose it is necessary - to store checksums and times of the last modification of each unit of the code (at compilation to do serialization of a syntactic tree in a file enough) and it is similar for the documentation (if xml - that to the compiler checks up it on special tags simply). And a special mode of compilation with check of correspondence of the code and docks.

6

Re: Why in IDE do not build in the editor of the documentation?

Hello, kov_serg, you wrote: V>> And minuses it is a lot of. At least two: V>> - a binding to specific IDE _> the Hogwash, always it is possible to export in pdf or a heap html and to pack in chm or to unpack necessary And to edit as in pdf? A binding to IDE for editing. V>> -  documentation with the code as the compiler any more has no possibility to check up the documentation _> So to support synchronization with the code all the same it is necessary at documenting. The compiler incurs a part of checks irrespective of IDE. _> And then the documentation part should describe at all the code. This part normally write generally separately from the code, here special IDE the tool problem is not necessary generally _> And that that doxygen  as a rule fierce  not suitable as the documentation, as  on  purely formal Well it not. If developers write formal replies instead of normal documenting any special IDE it does not change.

7

Re: Why in IDE do not build in the editor of the documentation?

Hello, anonymouse2, you wrote: A> For a long time already it would be time to work out the standard on function IDE (it is possible on levels - basic type "syntax highlighting", it is more difficult also absolutely difficult), and the general-purpose standard file formats of projects, files of the documentation and other, not concerning directly to a programming language. Or at least in a programming language that projects on With ++ could be opened in any development environment. Aha. And for a long time it is time to invent one language that on it to communicate If invent such standard - it will be simple on one standard more. Because 99 % of people it will be not necessary. There is no need. If there is a desire - invent. V>> -  with the code as the compiler any more has no possibility to check up documentation A> For a long time already it would be time to the documentation that the compiler checked, whether the documentation is coordinated with the code. It and now checks. The documentation after all in the code. A> All that for this purpose it is necessary - to store checksums and times of the last modification of each unit of the code (at compilation to do serialization of a syntactic tree in a file enough) and it is similar for the documentation (if xml - that to the compiler checks up it on special tags simply). And a special mode of compilation with check of correspondence of the code and docks. There is a special mode of compilation for __ docks.

8

Re: Why in IDE do not build in the editor of the documentation?

Hello, Arsen. Shnurkov, you wrote: AS> 1) the specialized built in editor, for example HTML with review; AS> 2) navigation from any code unit to the page opened on editing in the editor of the documentation. AS>  not  It would anchor the source code only to one IDE. It will be impossible to look at comments in other text editor. AS> and possibilities on editing would be more: pictures, for example, with charts to see in wysiwyg. All in your hands - take any IDE with open source codes and doxygen or other means of preparation of the documentation. Integrate them and add these possibilities. If this implementation by much is pleasant, gradually such possibilities appear in all IDE.

9

Re: Why in IDE do not build in the editor of the documentation?

Hello, Arsen. Shnurkov, you wrote: AS> In my opinion it is stupid. Instead it was necessary to make: AS> 1) the specialized built in editor, for example HTML with review; AS> 2) navigation from any code unit to the page opened on editing in the editor of the documentation. It insufficiently considerably. It is necessary to build in documentation check the compiler. Did not write the comment - the program does not gather. These freaks (programmers) do not write even for what the file and a class is intended. Would kill.

10

Re: Why in IDE do not build in the editor of the documentation?

Hello, Arsen. Shnurkov, you wrote: AS> Here do any XML comments. And it is necessary to do easier comments, with minimum formatting. In the spirit of javadoc'ov-doxygen'ov, or generally without . Which IDE look not as garbage, and as the documentation-on-place.

11

Re: Why in IDE do not build in the editor of the documentation?

Hello, Alexander G, you wrote: AG> And it is necessary to do easier comments, with minimum formatting. AG> in the spirit of javadoc'ov-doxygen'ov, or generally without . AG> Which IDE look not as garbage, and as the documentation-on-place. It only for the immediate code. When it is necessary to document abstractions above level, than is in language, comments in the code do not suit any more.