[austinmccoy6251]

Yes! That's actually one of the primary motivations behind why we made this "comment-based." The caveat of course is that we presently only support Python at the moment, but you can expect to see C++ and Java support rolled out in the next few weeks. This particularly excites me since these languages are heavily lacking these sorts of tools IMO.

[theCodeStig]

To avoid duplication of input/output tags; it would be nice to have a bridge that coincides with existing documentation comment tools. For example Scaladoc has @param, and @return.

[austinmccoy6251]

Great suggestion! I am actively pushing to try to make small decisions like this to make it flow with one's current documentation format as much as possible. I will definitely add this to the to-do list.

[verdverm]

Do applications wanting this need to add your project as a dependency or is adding comments and running a tool sufficient?

[austinmccoy6251]

Great question! This does not require any dependency whatsoever -- adding comments and running the tool is sufficient. This was important, as our core mission is to ensure that integrating Artemis into your code does not require you to bend your dependencies, executable code, or workflow around this tool.

[neojebfkekeej]

That’s great! Would love to see ruby supported for my use case