<i>Since you took `glob` as an example, how do you get to the explanation of `for test in </i>.in`?*<p>`man -k wildcard` points to `man 3am fnmatch` which points to `man 3 fnmatch`. Now the process for python and shell converge, and I still have to know to look at the &quot;See Also&quot; section of the manpage to find `man 7 glob` which finally gives me useful information.<p>The python workflow involved one fewer discrete step, but the user would have to know <i>both</i> help() in the python REPL <i>and</i> how to navigate man pages, while for shell scripts the user only needed to know how to navigate man pages.<p><i>I&#x27;m not trying to say python is good here (well, the stdlib documentation on the web is actually pretty good, it&#x27;s just not easily available from the console). But the idea that bash&#x2F;man is more discoverable is just wrong... You can find the glob under &quot;Pattern Matching&quot; section which is all right, but you need to understand most of the expansion mechanism of shell to know it applies to &quot;for&quot;. Then again &quot;for&quot; itself has a definition that belongs more to a CS material, than to a usage guide.</i><p>I do very much agree with you here. Man pages are not very accessible. Some man pages (most that I work with, but I understand that&#x27;s not everyone&#x27;s experience) are very good, complete, and understandable. I&#x27;d be comfortable saying that python&#x27;s and the shell&#x27;s documentation features are roughly equally usefule ± some small amount.