docfxhost VS DocFX

This is a better looking version of what Java and C# have had for a long time (kudos to the author for that!), is that the inspiration for this tool?

https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/tools/window...

https://dotnet.github.io/docfx/

I saw the author mentioned in another comment that they found themselves peeping inside type declaration files "too often". While I do often use sites generated by the above tools to discover new API's that suit my needs, diving into the actual code using a good decompiler is still my first move, as it is often cheaper than seeking out the documentation online, and it will show me the actual implementation as well. So in my opinion there is no shame in looking inside the declaration files!

Tools like DocFx provide the ability to display the programmable functions in HTML pages. They are used with the following commands in the docfx folder:

AFAIK they use https://github.com/dotnet/docfx which can be too heavy for your case. We use mdBook for internal documentation (plain .md with mermaid plugin) and then serve it at docs.yourdevenv.com.

DocFX is a nice solution.

It uses DocFX

Some of the standard and well-maintained Tools for Comments are JSDoc for Javascript, DocFx for .NET, and JavaDoc for Java.

Actually, we use it for OptiTune, it's called "docfx" https://dotnet.github.io/docfx/

We would really prefer to use a somewhat generic pre-made tool for this (such as DocFX) compared to rolling our own solution. We can roll our own solution... But would prefer not to so that we can minimize development and maintenance overhead.