Jason TurnerWhat is the current state of the art for C++ documentation generators?
Or do you think they are less necessary because of IDE usage?
Jules@lefticus Doxygen is still the best one IMO, it can easily be themed using Doxygen Awesome CSS. LSP clients definitely helps navigate code without it though
Stephen Whittle@lefticus I maintain some C++ middleware for games, there's definitely still demand for standalone docs external to the source code.
A few years back when we built our docs pipeline it felt like doxygen was still considered state-of-the-art with few alternatives in widespread use.
A few years back when we built our docs pipeline it felt like doxygen was still considered state-of-the-art with few alternatives in widespread use.
@lefticus However, we found doxygen's limitations to be really confining and ended up writing our own thing using clangAST that dumps ast+comments to json and runs that through a template engine. I think some kind of similar approach is probably where 'state of the art' should be heading in terms of a doxygen alternative/replacement, its a super flexible approach and lets us easily change or alter the output format, add new @tags to add extra metadata we can then render however we like, etc.
Peter Sommerlad
Pierre Marchand@lefticus I use doxygen+breathe to Sphinx. I have seen other libs do the same recently. It is more interesting than the usual doxygen documentation where you just dump all your function/class prototypes. It motivates you to discuss your own lib like python documentation.
Robert@lefticus I very much appreciate standalone documentation for large libraries (std, Qt,...). For application-level development (at least for small to mid-sized teams), I no longer see signigicant benefit.