Rethinking the documentation

General discussion about LÖVE, Lua, game development, puns, and unicorns.
User avatar
slime
Solid Snayke
Posts: 3172
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:45 am
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Rethinking the documentation

Post by slime »

raidho36 wrote:Regarding correctness, an automatic documentation generator should be used for that - most places already include basic header documentation.
Newer C++ classes in LÖVE's codebase tend not to have such documentation, partly because the exposed Lua API does not usually match the C++ methods for non-trivial functions (and if we made it do that, we'd be forcing C++'s language design on a Lua API). We prefer to not write the documentation in-line in the codebase.
Santos
Party member
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:37 am

Re: Rethinking the documentation

Post by Santos »

slime mentioned out-of-date documentation, which made me think: if you're making documentation for LOVE, consider mentioning the current LOVE version at the time the documentation was last updated or reviewed. It may still become out-of-date, but at least the reader can tell sooner.
alloyed
Citizen
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 8:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Rethinking the documentation

Post by alloyed »

I'm reminded of the Dwarf Fortress wiki. Every time a major update is published, they effectively create a new wiki each time by copy-pasting the old one, and adding a little box that says something like "this was automatically copypasted, if it's current you can go ahead and remove this notice"
It makes it obvious when somebody needs to put in the elbow grease to update the wiki, and it's a lot easier to follow IMO than "added/removed in 0.X.0"

example: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php? ... did=213191
User avatar
zorg
Party member
Posts: 3470
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: Absurdistan, Hungary
Contact:

Re: Rethinking the documentation

Post by zorg »

alloyed wrote:I'm reminded of the Dwarf Fortress wiki. Every time a major update is published, they effectively create a new wiki each time by copy-pasting the old one, and adding a little box that says something like "this was automatically copypasted, if it's current you can go ahead and remove this notice"
It makes it obvious when somebody needs to put in the elbow grease to update the wiki, and it's a lot easier to follow IMO than "added/removed in 0.X.0"

example: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php? ... did=213191
No, because people still use older versions; how would you keep track of that without deleting the stuff pertaining to older versions?
I'd rather have this than have 500 articles titled "love.graphics.draw_(x.y.z)[_(language)]", or having 500 wikis that desync. That's worse imo.
Me and my stuff :3True Neutral Aspirant. Why, yes, i do indeed enjoy sarcastically correcting others when they make the most blatant of spelling mistakes. No bullying or trolling the innocent tho.
User avatar
Karai17
Party member
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:46 pm

Re: Rethinking the documentation

Post by Karai17 »

I maintain that using wikimedia for documentation is not the best tool for the job, and that the documentation and any "manual" or tutorials etc should be separate.
STI - An awesome Tiled library
LÖVE3D - A 3D library for LÖVE 0.10+

Dev Blog | GitHub | excessive ❤ moé
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 4 guests