I think the point they are making is that you only read what is shown you instead of seeing the full docs and being encouraged to follow rabbit holes and browse nearby info. Speaking for myself, this has been one of the largest boosters in my own career: visits to a docs page that led to me basically reading the whole docs.
I am not sure if we are speaking about the same thing. LSP can give you type hints. What I am doing is that I am opening a "window" in my editor that has the full docs. You can browse through it freely. The issue with "non-Rust" languages is that the docs will be on a website. On most Rust projects (90%+), the libraries will use the Docs system which makes the docs fully available on LSP.
I believe the distinction is that if you have to manually browse the docs and navigate to the method of interest, you might see something else interesting along the way.
Whereas if your editor takes you directly to the method in question, you miss that opportunity.
If I want to read through the doc, I'll just do that, and I frequently do it with all dependencies that I'm directly interacting with. As fun and informative as it is, personally I don't want to do this exercise every time I need a peek at the documentation of a class or function, in the same way I don't take a detour into the mountain every time I get out of my house, as much as I enjoy hiking.
> you only read what is shown you instead of seeing the full docs and being encouraged to follow rabbit holes and browse nearby info.
I can use a convenient shortcut to go as deep as I want in the codebase, including libraries. Meanwhile crowd with clinical case of tool aversion will spend time fuzzy-searching and manually sifting through text.
If your code editor looks up the doc, you find yourself reading what the code editor shows you.
Wikipedia, (real) historians have some aversion to using it. No argument, it is convenient.