# RDoc status and future? **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [February 23, 2010, 11:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-status-and-future/183975 "2010-02-23T11:11:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Claus\_Folke\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e36b37/32.png) [@Claus\_Folke\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Claus_Folke_B)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 11:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-status-and-future/183975/1 "2010-02-23T11:11:30Z")
Hi all, RDoc 1.0.1 is part of the standard library for Ruby 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 (don’t know about Ruby 1.9.x). RDoc 2.4.3 seems to be the newest and very different version but is not part of the standard library. Can anyone shed some light on the status and future of RDoc as the standard way of documenting Ruby programs? Has development of RDoc stopped? What do you use for generating documentation of your Ruby programs? Best regards, Claus ---
**Author:** ![Claus\_Folke\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e36b37/32.png) [@Claus\_Folke\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Claus_Folke_B)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-status-and-future/183975/2 "2010-02-23T17:48:44Z")
On Feb 23, 5:11 am, Claus Folke B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Has development of RDoc stopped? > What do you use for generating documentation of your Ruby programs? I use RDoc 2.4.3 but via WebRI. Others use Yard. ---
**Author:** ![Claus\_Folke\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e36b37/32.png) [@Claus\_Folke\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Claus_Folke_B)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 10:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-status-and-future/183975/3 "2010-02-24T10:14:18Z")
Thomas S. wrote: > On Feb 23, 5:11�am, Claus Folke B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > Has development of RDoc stopped? > > What do you use for generating documentation of your Ruby programs? > > I use RDoc 2.4.3 but via WebRI. Others use Yard. Generally, I am worried about the future of RDoc: - Will RDoc continue to be part of the Ruby Standard Library? - Is RDoc still actively developed? - RDoc future plans? - Why are people starting to use YARD? I am working for a company and we cannot just switch documentation tool from one project to the next, so I am really looking for some degree of assurance that we are using the right tool. Preferably a tool which is part of the Ruby Standard Library. Claus ---
**Author:** ![Claus\_Folke\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e36b37/32.png) [@Claus\_Folke\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Claus_Folke_B)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 12:15pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-status-and-future/183975/4 "2010-02-24T12:15:49Z")
Claus Folke B. schrieb: > > I use RDoc 2.4.3 but via WebRI. Others use Yard. > > I am working for a company and we cannot just switch documentation tool > > from one project to the next, so I am really looking for some degree of > > assurance that we are using the right tool. Preferably a tool which is > > part of the Ruby Standard Library. > > Claus Then make yourself independent from language specific, html documentation tools. I am using docbook in Jeszra. Jeszra also generates RDoc (pydoc) comments, when creating ruby (python) classes. Here is an overview of DocBook generation in Jeszra: [http://jeszra.sourceforge.net/jeszra/Jeszra\_DocBook.html](http://jeszra.sourceforge.net/jeszra/Jeszra_DocBook.html) The end-structur of a Docbook document (or DITA as an alternative) is controlled by your docbook toolchain --the main workload for tools such as RDoc. Converting the RDoc comments into a docbook document is simple in comparision to the structur generation part in RDoc. So use the RDoc tags to make Docbook documents from them. -roger ---
**Author:** ![Claus\_Folke\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/e36b37/32.png) [@Claus\_Folke\_B](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Claus_Folke_B)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 1:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rdoc-status-and-future/183975/5 "2010-02-24T13:00:53Z")
On Feb 24, 2010, at 01:14 , Claus Folke B. wrote: > Thomas S. wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 5:11�am, Claus Folke B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > > Has development of RDoc stopped? > > > What do you use for generating documentation of your Ruby programs? > > > > I use RDoc 2.4.3 but via WebRI. Others use Yard. > > Generally, I am worried about the future of RDoc: > > - Will RDoc continue to be part of the Ruby Standard Library? absolutely > - Is RDoc still actively developed? Rdoc is alive and well. It is maintained by Eric H… The gem is far beyond what ships in 1.8. 1.9 ships a couple revs behind the gem. > - RDoc future plans? Eric’s latest sprint was to improve the rdoc parser so it was much faster, lighter on memory, and thoroughly tested. I don’t know what else he has in mind for it at this time. > - Why are people starting to use YARD? good question.