That's cool but I couldn't find this emphasized on the Architexa site anywhere; it seems like a pretty key point to keep potential customers from being disappointed as Architexa begins the 'free as in beer' marketing campaign.
I agree, no one type of documentation can live in a vacuum. Ideally, javadoc, sample code, tutorials, diagrams, and summaries/explanations would be present for every code base. But in reality I find even a few simple diagrams combined with a insightful description is infinitely better than pages of minimal javadoc.
This is brilliant but using 'genome' implies mutation/evolution. It seems that the content these companies/sites generate evolves over time but the Collective Intelligence Genome(rules for content management) remains more or less fixed over time.
Indeed. Why do people insist on calling things "Genomes" or talking about the "DNA" of concepts that have no relationships with the meanings of such terms?
In an ideal world the tools programmers use would enable them to write easily understandable/maintainable code; no matter what their virtues are. The best tools should take these traits into account.
Ruby support may be implemented down the road depending on customer demand.
Many UML tools add too much info automatically, we have a number of features that allow users to add the nodes they care about with a single context menu click: Show Super/Subtype Hierarchy, show Extending/Extended Classes, and show referencing types / methods.
Possibly more rewarding than just 'working with your hands' is accomplishing something by yourself. Whether you are programming your own small project or fixing a bike/car it's the learning new skills and having something to show for it part that is most rewarding