Re: The standard library is better documented

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-12-04 21:12:17

On 12/4/23 20:53, Niilo Huovila via Boost wrote:
> On 12/4/23 4:36 PM, Hans Dembinski wrote:
>>> On 2. Dec 2023, at 16:57, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost
>>> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be useful if you could point to instances of Boost libraries
>>> that could use better documentation.
>>
>> Can we organise a user poll that ranks all Boost libraries on how well
>> documented they are?
>>
>> Might be a fun way to approach this and it provides an opportunity to
>> create some publicity for Boost when we advertise this. I can see the
>> news headline: "Boost devs finally respond to user cries for better docs"
> 
> The secret of cppreference seems to be that it is a wiki. How about
> that? Users could put their energy to improving the docs instead of
> complaining. :)

Wiki is prone to vandalism and edit wars.

Also, aside from stylistic and wording edits, the documentation is
supposed to be written by people who are very knowledgeable in the
subject. Those people are likely very few, often maintainers only.

Wiki is good for "public knowledge" kind of documentation. The official
library documentation is very different from that. In fact, it is the
ground truth upon which that public knowledge is built.