> now you've shifted to just be dismissive of noobs

No, I'm sorry, this is getting ridiculous. I'm not being dismissive of noobs, I'm saying "noobs should seek introductory material when attempting to learn an entirely new subject, like books, courses, or tutorials on the subject matter".

It's just so freaking weird for you to expect every single tool in some space to create that introductory material.

I promise you that the ruby on rails website did not assume total ignorance of the term "web application" when I first came across it as a "noob". I was a total noob at ruby on rails, but I had to understand why I might be interested in "web applications, but easier".

I could spend all day coming up with examples that are just like this. And this is not some kind of failure of imagination in how to document specific projects, it's just specialization. The website of a new tool for something that has been done a bunch of times over multiple decades is not the right place to put the canonical text on what the thing you're doing is; you put that in a book or in college courses or other kinds of training materials.

Unless what you have made is a brand new entirely unfamiliar thing (which is very rare) with no introductory materials for your brand new novel concept available anywhere, it makes more sense to focus your documentation on "why choose this specific solution over the other ones people are already familiar with" rather than "what even is the thing that we're doing here from first principles". Sure, add some links to the best introductory materials, but don't try to write them yourself, that's crazy!

> I actually disagree. This is the outsourcing I expressed previously, but it's clear from the number of complaints that this is not sufficient for a novice. You do seem passionate about this issue, and so maybe you have the opportunity to fill that gap.

No, I'm not passionate about this issue. I think people who actually want to learn things will continue doing research and reading books and taking classes to learn about new subjects, and that people who just want to complain will continue to do so. There is no "gap" to fill. There are tons of great materials that will describe in great depth what "data frames" are, and how to work with them, for anyone who is even the tiniest bit interested.

> I very much think that official documentation is supposed to be the best place. Frankly because it is written by the people who have a full understanding of the system and how it all integrates together.

I think what you seem to be confused by is the difference between this one library - polars - and an entire large subject - tabular data analysis using data frames. It certainly does make sense for the polars website to document the polars library, which (in my view) it already does. But if you want to learn the subject, you need to do that in the normal way that people have always learned new subjects. I'm sorry, because you seem resistant to this, but again, the way to do that is with books and courses, not by reading the documentation of one tool comprising a tiny sliver of a very large subject.

> I'm sure you've run into tons of Medium tutorials that get the job done but are also utter garbage and misinform users.

No, Medium tutorials should not be your go-to source for learning about a new subject! Your go-to source should be books and courses.

This is why I keep commenting here. I want to get through to you that you seem to be going about the acquisition of knowledge in a very weird and fundamentally misguided way. It just isn't the case that knowledge is mostly found in the documentation of tools! There is way more foundational knowledge to learn than it would ever make sense for every little tool to document themselves.

This is, in a very literal sense, why people write books about things, and why schools exist. We don't teach algebra by linking to the Mathematica documentation.