"Ick", "Ow", what is this word salad. C# documentation is pretty decent, exhaustive and comprehensive. How would you even "improve" table of contents anyway? I

"Ick", "Ow", what is this word salad. C# documentation is pretty decent, exhaustive and comprehensive. How would you even "improve" table of contents anyway? It just says what a type has. You can't add/remove much from it. Are they really complaining that a website they haven't used much is different to a website they have used a lot? There are plenty examples of bad documentation but for simple type info navigation all C#, Go and C++ are totally fine - I only had to peruse the C++ one for example and found everything quickly and in sufficiently great detail (it did not help with abrasive nature of the language for general purpose coding but I digress). It's the additional information/context that is often lacking. Moreover in C# you can use your IDE or a VS Code plugin to see all types present in a namespace or a package. Most of the time, their type and method names are self-descriptive - what matters more is hand-written guidance to using the library the right way, which is extremely hit and miss with numerous Rust crates. I think the author just wanted to make a complaint for its own sake and is not looking at documentation from perspective of being productive with a particular language.