I love this discussion and agree with most of what has been said. I am looking for the best way to help. @Libman 's proposal is extravagant but appealing.
I have a serious worry that's a little different from "documentation not good enough for Nim programmers to get started, be productive, etc." I am worried that until we have very solid "language spec" level explanations of Nim itself, we won't even know all the nooks and crannies of the de facto semantics of the implementation. Then, if we declare 1.0 while in that state, these nooks and crannies become guaranteed backward-compatible semantics of the language. As an example to illustrate what I mean, the project I'm working on in Nim tends to push macros and compile-time code execution pretty hard. The current version of the Nim Manual just hazily sketches how macros and templates work and hazily refers here and there to the semantics and restrictions of compile-time execution. From [my testing so far](https://github.com/joy-prime/the-edge-of-Nim), the nooks and crannies of these semantics and restrictions seem far more intricate than what one would expect from that hazy material in the Manual. I don't even know whether my testing is exposing bugs or features, nor do I know what terminology we'd like to use for talking about the semantics. So it is hard for me to respond either by submitting bug reports or by contributing to documentation.
