Talk:Natural Docs

Merge: NaturalDocs into Natural Docs

Simple, we don't need two articles about the same exact thing. 68.226.61.4 06:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It previously forwarded to Natural Docs because it's just a common way to write it. Someone changed it to a separate article and that should be undone. Greg10101 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirected other page, as this one is more complete and uses the author's preferred spelling. This shouldn't be controversial. Greg10101 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming other tools as negative examples

It has gained popularity amongst ActionScript 2.0 developers because no other free documentation generator exists that fully supports ActionScript 2.0 and because it generates higher-quality output than similar generators that partially support the language, such as ROBODoc.

This phrase names another tool as a negative, (or comparatively worse) example. The output quality of other tools is highy subjective and a matter of taste. I think this comparision is unfair and at least the names of other tools should be removed here.

--Thuffir Hawat 09:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. That sentence specifically states 'similar generators that partially support the language', and /then/ gives the example of ROBODoc. Effectively it is saying that full language support results in better documentation generation (kind of obvious really) and gives an example of a program that has only partial language support. It's not saying that ROBODoc is worse, just that it doesn't have full language support for that particular language.

In that sense the sentence names a single feature of another tool as a comparatively worse than a particular feature of this program. I'm sure there are many examples of particular features in ROBODoc which are done better or more fully compared to Natural Docs and pointing them out isn't a bad thing, it helps users figure out which programs might fit their needs better. Ahugenerd (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement about ActionScript?

The comment about a lack of documentation tools for ActionScript is incorrect I believe.

There has been an Adobe tool available for some time now (ASDoc) which works with Javadoc-style comments to generate html documentation from source code. This tool is now Apache licensed 89.197.45.90 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Natural Docs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150820064110/http://www.naturaldocs.org/languages.html to http://www.naturaldocs.org/languages.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150820064110/http://www.naturaldocs.org/languages.html to http://www.naturaldocs.org/languages.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)