> I didn't know what bad documentation was until I used Ruby.

Really? I mean, you probably could have made any other point and have it hold even the slightest amount of water.

OK, let's help you out on finding some good documentation on Ruby:

http://ruby-doc.com/docs/ProgrammingRuby/

http://ruby-doc.org/

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ruby_Programming

http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant-guide/book/chapter-1.htm...

http://rubylearning.com/satishtalim/tutorial.html

Documentation in Ruby is bad not because of the amount of resource available. But because the community's love on language's meta-programming.

Module are dynamically included. Methods are dynamically generated. The generation static document can only give a partial view of the running objects.

And btw that's one of the winning points of PHP. Let me find some great documentation for you: http://php.net . That's it, one link is enough.

Out of curiosity, what about the Ruby documentation makes you say that? I personally rank Ruby's documentation (at least for the core language) as being pretty damn good (only a few I can think of are better), and node's core documentation is, in my opinion, a great example of how _not_ to write documentation. A personal favourite is how the first line of documentation for ClientRequest and IncomingMessage is about what creates them rather than in terms of what abstraction they represent[1]. Also, nothing in the documentation documents the types of things. In that regard, the Ruby docs are a bit weak (with the type documentation being a bit more informal than I'd like), but at least they put in the effort to document it. Also, I personally find the code samples in the Ruby docs to be much nicer than those in the Node docs (though YMMV).

[1] - https://nodejs.org/api/http.html#http_http_incomingmessage