At some point they lost that focus and dropped the ball. For example for a very long time they had no direct support for reactjs even when it was hugely popular, instead you had to go find some third party library which is a terrible thing to have to do for implementation of payment code.
Maybe they’re improved and started supporting actively the technologies developers are using.
Looks like they were partly generated, otherwise it would be impossible to keep everything consistent - especially with the many language examples. They also seem to generate an OpenApi Spec (or use this as a basis for generating the docs?): https://github.com/stripe/openapi
There have been. The following is a good search to use to find other discussions.
It's a tiny thing that saves me a lot of time.
 Auth0 - https://auth0.com/docs/api/authentication
There are BNF to railroad diagram generators (they take a "grammar file", often BNF, and output a railroad diagram).
And thanks for giving me a name for them, too.
The sample json responses are also based on your data too, and the docs showcase what those look like
I'd be curious to know what you like about the Python documentation because my experience has probably been different than yours.
More on-topic, searching is a major weakness of Python's docs. What's that? Python just got multi-line strings allowing embedded expressions? They're called f-strings? Let me go read about them. I can't link it, but even using Startpage the immediate results are a post from RealPython and PEP498 and while both are great, they aren't terse enough to be frequently referenced. If you search for "formatted string literal" in the docs it takes 10 results before you reach something explicitly talking about them. And then you need to follow the links a couple times to reach https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#f-... (notice it is anchored as "f-strings" which was the first term we searched for).
While the Python docs, when I've found them, have been adequate for me so far -- although I still check up on how others do the things I want to do -- I'm partial to docs such as MDN that cover parameters and return value in one take for reference with more in-depth information as you scroll down, if needed.
: Here's a start for reading. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8689964/why-do-some-func...
I feel like my writing skills and my ability to make code understandable and explicit to other readers would be a perfecy use for producing great documentation.
(Your profile email isn’t public!)
My choice is, perhaps, more indicative of taste/proclivity than anything else.
I haven't come across many swagger-based docs that I liked.
Having said that, I agree that it's a problem with the user, not the tool. Swagger is fine, you should just put some effort into using it well.
One of the most important features of an API Doc is that it tells the complete truth and is always up to date. An OpenApi Spec therefore really "wants" to be auto-generated. There we've had mixed experiences, aswell. If the generator is not working as expected or missing a feature important to you, you're either limited or you take on generating it yourself.
I've used an approach a while ago, I was quite happy with, but it took some effort: Everything API related has one definitite source of truth. Out of that, generate the docs, example and specs you need. Also use this for validation. For Documentation, I've used a wiki. The generated docs or code snippets were generated as Templates, and could be embedded/transcluded in the documentation, which was otherwise hand-written. This provided a nice mix of written and generated content with full flexibility.
Some of the worst docs I've ever seen used swagger. Some of the best I've seen used swagger, so the tool doesn't make the docs IMO.
I'd rather you email me a .txt file that's well organized and complete (including a damned baseURL, you heathens) than pretty swagger docs without substance.