Which library in the top 100 that you used had documentation (or lack thereof) that wasn't sufficient to understand how to accomplish the task at hand?
Some of the libraries need you to click into the docs for specific modules to get the full documentation for them. This confused me when I first set out.
eg. Postgres Simple. This is the page you get to at first when you search for it:
Part of the problem is that stackage.org does not have a nice design for reading docs, even when the author has written some like this.
I'd love to see more Haskell packages using readthedocs or similar. But I imagine that stackage providing ugly docs for free as a side-effect of publishing the package discourages most from making the extra effort to have nice docs.
I appreciate that the content is ultimately all there, and this particular package has made effort with docs.
But "the only problem" in this design is... quite a bad design. I don't really understand the choice to hide the actual docs and make a tree listing of sub-modules the primary content on the page.
This is pretty standard practice. The landing page for a package is never where examples live (except for the README). Haddocks are used for examples & tutorials, and the top-level module or a documentation-only module ending in ".Tutorial" are often provided.
Sure. It just took a bit of getting used to, but could be the reason why a lot of casual developers looking at the language have the impression that the documentation is poor.
I was just repeating the statistic from the article
I've no idea if the packages I have used or looked at are in the top 100 but most of them have not really had what I would call 'documentation', just sort of minimal probably auto-generated api docs
