>>> I think you need boths. Do you think the Ruby documentation I linked is bad?
>> It's worse than the ELisp manual, yes.
> In terms of visual contrast/cues, it is not.
>>> For quite a lot of people, this page
http://ergoemacs.org/emacs/elisp_string_functions.html is much simpler to use & learn from than this page
https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Strings-and-Characters.html>>> It does not mean that the later page is bad, it is actually more complete, better documented, already grouped in topics... and yet, a lot of people prefer the first page... straight to the point, simple examples.
> • I can read the page in a reasonable amount of time,
> • I can figure out what functions do and how to use them
> • I can quickly imagine new ways of doing things
> • and I can refer to the manual when I want deeper knowledge
> As mentioned above, I think the ergoemacs pages work well because of the way they use visual cues. We don't have many visual cues in the manual. That makes the manual uselessly more difficult to read.
Thanks for explaining my example. I find it very interesting/surprising that many people here do not think that way. Our position is probably due to exposure to many different workflows/languages, but I'm guessing here.