Talk:Javadoc

Java Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

-- no official sun javadoc has search, unless embedded in other 3rd party web pages. Criticism should stay, but I agree it needs to be revamped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.164 (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to critism: doxygen can generate javadoc html page with search function. I doesnt test, just know from colleague. Please test it someone.

Criticism is an opinion with no supporting references. I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@194.80.32.8 - The criticism section in its current state is pointless indeed, so I'm removing it. --Duplode (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference in introduction

I removed two links in the introduction. One to Programmer's File Editors which did not seem specific to Javadoc and the other to http://www.slickedit.com, where the page did not provide any relevant information about what it claimed to reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser1239 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit method-centric

>>Structure of a Javadoc comment ... >>The first paragraph is a description of the method documented.

The article launches in as if methods are the only thing worth Javadoc-ing - what about Javadoc for classes, packages and the like? Renny Barrett (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in example?

I think that there is a mistake in example. Current version:

* @version     1.6                 (the version of the package this class was first added to)                   
* @since       2010-03-31          (a date or the version number of this program)

Correct version (?):

* @version     1.6                 (a date or the version number of this program)                   
* @since       2010-03-31          (the version of the package this class was first added to)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.50.254 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@jls Comments

There is one kind of Javadoc comment missing here, the @jls tag, which specifies a link to the Java Language Specification (used in Java API javadoc). Gparyani (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Javadoc was one of the first documentation generators"

So when did Knuth invent Literate Programming again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.162.181.145 (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle as the company that created it / DONE

Even though they were bought out, Sun Microsystems should be credited directly with maybe a mention of them being bought out. I'd change it myself, but I can't be arsed getting into an edit war with some wiki elitist. So I request you to please apply my change, dear sir or madam. - Gav 19:37 BST - 26/06/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.31.181 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, now credited: "created by Sun Microsystems for the Java language (now owned by Oracle Corporation)". --Jari Aalto, 2015-09-15 10:26 UTC