Regarding "the fact that jQuery had support for Intellisense at the company I worked for, their jaw dropped, and it's a big selling point..."
This is definitely the case at the agency I work for as well. That said, I can combat some of it with the wonderful framework vs toolkit argument on Aaron's comparison site, but since our Chicago office is HEAVY on the .net, it truly is a big selling point. On 6/2/09, fakedarren <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all > > I have recently made some Intellisense documentation for MooTools, but > I doubt that Visual Studio documentation is the best way to spend my > time - there is undoubtedly more popular editors used by MooTools > developers - there must be a lot of Aptana, Dreamweaver, and Coda > users, to name just a few of the IDEs we all use. I would rather spend > it on a parser to provide docs for all IDEs. > > One of the main points of feedback I've received from making the > Intellisense is that it would be awesome if we could get a consistent > 'documentation API' so we can really easily access documentation, and > rather than rolling our own static docs, spend the time (which can be > a lot of time just rewriting a flavour of MooTools) writing a parsing > engine (mmm, regular expressions) that parses a unified doc file. > > To the core developers, do you still use Natural Docs? I remember a > while back (maybe 1.1?) it said 'powered by Natural Docs' somewhere on > the page. We use that where I work because when I make an addition to > our company library, I just document the JS file and we're done. Which > is great! > > If so, I can write a regexp parser that will represent that as an XML > document, or JSON format - the only problem with that is that we'd > also need an indication of inheritance too. If you make a custom build > of Core, or more likely, More, it needs to pick this up and present a > representative doc file. Maybe an accompanying XML file, hosted > somewhere on mootools.net? > > Am well up for an open discussion for this. I know that when I > mentioned the fact that jQuery had support for Intellisense at the > company I worked for, their jaw dropped, and it's a big selling point, > hence why I wrote a Moo equivalent, because I love the moo...now > there's no excuse :) It would be awesome if we could provide MooTools > support for all the major IDEs - it would be even more awesome if we > can come up with a good way to support cross-IDE documentation for ALL > javascript frameworks! > >
