Side by side
RDoc vs Scaladoc
Both stand on documentation generators. Which one you can start free with, which one lets you read the code, and what each costs once you pay.
Free plan LinuxSelf-hosted
Choose RDoc if your Ruby project needs generated HTML and command-line documentation, with source coverage reporting and a local preview. Look elsewhere if you need a preview server with HTTPS or HTTP/2; RDoc’s server is intended only for local development.
Visit RDoc Free plan LinuxMacWeb+1
Scaladoc turns code comments into structured Scala documentation and supports both API references and static sites. For complex projects, sbt is described as the easier generation route.
Visit ScaladocThe facts
| RDoc | Scaladoc | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Open source | Not published | Not published |
| Runs on | Linux, Self-hosted | Linux, Mac, Web, Windows |
| Lowest paid plan | Free or on request | Free or on request |
| Plans published | 1 | 1 |
| Maker | Not published | Not published |
| Website | ruby.github.io | docs.scala-lang.org |
| On documentation generators | #17 of 37 | #13 of 37 |
RDoc: what it does well
- Generates HTML and command-line documentation for Ruby projects.
- Processes Ruby, C, RBS, and multiple markup formats.
- Local preview refreshes when watched source files change.
- Coverage reports can include parameter names.
- Generation can run through Rake or the RDoc API.
What to know first
- The preview server is for local use and has no HTTPS or HTTP/2.
- The current gem requires Ruby 3.2.0 or newer.
- Darkfish is deprecated and planned for removal in v9.0.
Scaladoc: what it does well
- Generates HTML API documentation
- Supports Markdown in Scala 3 and legacy Wikidoc
- Can inherit comments from superclasses and traits
- Accepts Scala source, TASTy, and JAR files
What to know first
- Search by method and field type is still in development
- Direct command-line use is harder for complex projects
Alternatives to RDoc Alternatives to Scaladoc The whole list