On 1 September 2014 13:26, Bram Vaessen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Robert, > > One question: did the previous wikis offer a structure that somewhat > covers most of OSG (like the api documentation)? Or was it a list of guides > and articles? > It was a mixture of content, there wasn't ever a systematic attempt at API documentation. Writing extensive documentation takes a great deal of time, the best efforts on documentation so far have been with the OSG books - these are the best source of coherent documentation on how to use the OSG. I think it probably needs a small number of contributors to make documentation work well. For good documentation it's the manpower that is far more important than the technology you use to author it. Coding in some-ways easier as the compiler enforces compatibility with the core and has to evolve with the code base otherwise it'll cease to compile. Documentation by contrast can be written and go out of date but unless you keep reviewing all the documentation for all the sources you can't catch all these problems. Code examples can be a a middle ground where they can be compiled against the core OSG to check that everything still works - they can even serve as unit tests. Code examples aren't ideal for all the possible ways one might want to learn about the OSG, but are valuable component. For my own efforts I tend to focus on documentation in the code base such as doxygen comments and examples as they live alongside the code base and in the case of the OSG examples are a great test bed and form of testing the OSG or changes to it. Robert.
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
