[junon]

I'm not one of those "everything should be open source and free" snobs, but my documentation tool is definitely one of them. This is a SaaS behind a paywall it seems, so it's immediately not winning any points for me.

I do agree that the existing tools are horribly subpar, but at least I don't need to contact support to fix them myself.

You're going to have a hard time convincing the larger C++ community to use this, I think. Companies, sure, I guess.

EDIT: Also I kind of reject one of the assertions made here; the reason why I never have documentation for my libraries isn't because I don't write it. It's there, very nicely laid out, in the headers and comments and whatnot. A lot of it. Enough to fully understand it. But rendering it out to Man pages, Markdown, HTML, etc. in a manner consistent with how those formats should work is a PITA that Doxygen simply doesn't do how I'd like.

[hdoc]

We're looking at open sourcing hdoc in the future, and at least offering a free plan in the near term. We'd like to give back to the community too, it's part of the reason why we host our LLVM documentation freely.

We're currently targeting businesses and charging for the product understandably presents a barrier to many people, especially in C++ land where open source is the de facto standard. Unfortunately open source tools don't make money.

How would you like your documentation to be rendered when it's processed into markup formats? Source code documentation largely hasn't changed since the introduction of Doxygen-style comments so I'm curious to hear about your approaches.