Re: [boost] Do we need BoostBook?

Subject: Re: [boost] Do we need BoostBook?
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-06 13:54:33

On 12/05/2014 10:54 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On 12/06/2014 02:41 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:

>>
>> Maybe the question you might want to ask is ... Should QuickBook be
>> altered
>> to produce html directly?
> 
> QuickBook, likewise, is not required. So the question I really want to
> ask is what
> people's opinion about best documentation solution in 2014. It's
> intentionally
> open-ended.
> 

QuickBook is not required, but I find it to be an easy tool to write and
maintain docs. The setup of the tool chain has become much easier over
the years.

Yanking in snippets from source code that is part of the build/test
cycle is critical to me.

In addition to Boost libraries that I work on, I use QuickBook for our
internal and some client documentation.

I have considered using Sphinx because of the good reviews from other
Boosters; however, nearly all of my C++ projects are already using Boost
so brining in a Python tool seems like just-one-more-step.

michael

-- 
Michael Caisse
ciere consulting
ciere.com