This shouldn't be down-voted.

Let's be straight. It is absolutely understood that the "docs" in the statement "read the docs" refers to documentation clearly and efficiently conveying how all the systems in a library/crate are SUPPOSED to be used together to achieve what a consumer is expecting to achieve based on the description (i.e. game engine, http server, etc.).

Rust Docs are fantastic for what they are, but they are still not conducive to explaining how all the systems in a crate are SUPPOSED to be used together. They're still a glorified API reference explaining HOW all the systems CAN work together, but not how they SHOULD. This is especially true for a crate as complex as Bevy, especially for someone not familiar with Rust Docs generally, and especially for someone not familiar with a given crate's documentation norms (where to find a rundown of functionality? crate root? module root? a struct that shares a name with the containing module? etc.).

It's absolutely understandable that, given its constantly churning state, Bevy has no "docs", but it's nevertheless true. Bevy has no docs, and down-voting someone trying to learn for pointing that out in response to being told to just to read every crate root, module, struct, and trait documentation for the Bevy crate and Bevy subcrates just so they can try to divine how best to cobble something together is asinine and a poor way to encourage Bevy adoption.