From: James Britt Date: 2006-06-19T09:12:31+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby documentation (was Re: RUBY or (PHP5+PEAR+SMARTY)) Mat Schaffer wrote: > On Jun 18, 2006, at 6:51 PM, James Britt wrote: > >> Daniel Schierbeck wrote: >> >>> Mat Schaffer wrote: >>> >>>> The only downside I've found with Ruby/RoR compared with PHP is >>>> that the PHP documentation is really amazing. The commented >>>> documents are wonderful, and there's still nothing _quite_ like it >>> >>> I'm of the same opinion -- PHP is a lousy language, but the manual >>> works extremely well. We really ought to take a look at it and try >>> to make one for Ruby, perhaps even avoiding rDoc (yes, I'm aware of >>> rannotate, but I'm not sure it's quite enough.) >> >> >> Two contenders that have caught my eye are RDog and Rannotate, though >> both are flawed. But both have cool stuff, too. >> >> Both are on rubyforge.org, I believe. > > > IMHO, part of the reason PHP's documentation is great is that it's not > auto-generated. Tools are great, but they lack a certain element that > a flesh-and-blood editor provides. A ruby documentation team would be > a great thing. Hey, what a great idea. :) > > On that note, I like to write. Is anyone actively working on core ruby > documentation? If so, I'd like to help. If not, consider this a call > to action! :) Please see http://ruby-doc.org/stdlib/status.html And thank you. -- James Britt "You harmonize; then you customize." - Wilson Pickett