I’m not saying you can’t learn this way. I’m saying it’s not practical for most people. Many people who would fail this way would succeed other ways. Reading man bash as primary learning material will lead to failure for 999/1000 humans.
I’ve wanted to read man bash, and believe me, I’d think I was the kind of person who would (I learned Go just reading the spec. It’s a great spec), but man bash and many other man pages have never worked for me. Maybe if I tried again now.
bash, incidentally, has a man page that sucks. I've found that most larger GNU projects have pretty horrible man pages. Probably due to feature creep in said projects - so the manuals have to be large to cover all the features.
I spent 10 years avoiding awk, because every time I typed 'man awk' I was overwhelmed by the GNU monstrosity. Then I found the man page for the plan9 implementation of awk (http://man.cat-v.org/plan_9/1/awk) and learned the language in fifteen minutes.
> I've found that most larger GNU projects have pretty horrible man pages. Probably due to feature creep in said projects - so the manuals have to be large to cover all the features.
Rather, info manuals are GNU's official (self-invented I think) documentation system. They make manpages only because of their popularity, but they direct you to the info pages for more info. When other projects have too much documentation for a manpage, they split it among several pages, like perl, openssl, zsh, git, borg, btrfs, etc. Personally, I like both, and wouldn't rank one above the other.
