I used noweb, and web before that, long before go was conceived. In fact, I was a huge fan of that. Knuth literate programming was fun. it was tiny compared with godoc tool. Although the go tool is tiny compared with eclipse or even the old code warrior.
I like the language, and worked to get it running on our systems. Its nice how the go tool does some of the things it does, although there are other things it does that I prefer to do with other tools. I was just mentioning some facts about it I dont like. On Mar 23, 2013, at 8:58 PM, andrey mirtchovski <mirtchov...@gmail.com> wrote: > with mkfiles you can never have something like http://godoc.org. in > fact, it would be very difficult to make something like godoc for any > other language without major support from the authors or volunteers. > > what godoc.org does is amazing -- when you type in a query for > something that looks like a go package it will attempt to download it > and generate the package documentation from the source code on the > fly. no interaction from the author or website maintainer need to > happen, all is done by the go tool, usually with enough speed that not > much waiting is involved. all the package needs to do is abide by a > few rules in naming imports. > > try it for yourself (these packages will surely not be in the index): > > http://godoc.org/code.google.com/p/goxscr/qcs > http://godoc.org/code.google.com/p/goxscr/deco > http://godoc.org/code.google.com/p/goxscr/palette > http://godoc.org/code.google.com/p/goxscr/rorschach > http://godoc.org/code.google.com/p/goxscr/spirograph > > the stuff that falls out of such a tool is even more impressive. > here's an import graph for one of the xscr programs: > http://godoc.org/code.google.com/p/goxscr/moire?view=import-graph > > here's the one for godoc: > http://godoc.org/code.google.com/p/go/src/cmd/godoc?view=import-graph
