migrate docs website + improved docs

[ImmanuelSegol]

Describe the changes

This PR...

Linked Issues

Resolves #

[DmytroTym]

I like the docs, but there are several high-level suggestions I have that can be generally described as "documenting at the right level":

1. I know that the plan is to integrate doc comments from the code into this documentation. I think this is a great idea and imo it should replace all the code snippets and descriptions of specific types and functions that are currently present in the docs. Comments in the code are much more easily maintainable and updatable.
2. Tbh I don't like the technical descriptions of primitives. I think explaining how exactly rounds of Poseidon work with pictures is an overkill. Imo linking a good resource is enough. The same goes for NTT and MSM to less extent as there are fewer details about them in respective readmes which is a good thing (imo).
3. There are some instructions which I would consider common knowledge like testing Rust with cargo test or how to add a dependency in Cargo. Though that might be just me.

[ImmanuelSegol]

I like the docs, but there are several high-level suggestions I have that can be generally described as "documenting at the right level":

1. I know that the plan is to integrate doc comments from the code into this documentation. I think this is a great idea and imo it should replace all the code snippets and descriptions of specific types and functions that are currently present in the docs. Comments in the code are much more easily maintainable and updatable.
2. Tbh I don't like the technical descriptions of primitives. I think explaining how exactly rounds of Poseidon work with pictures is an overkill. Imo linking a good resource is enough. The same goes for NTT and MSM to less extent as there are fewer details about them in respective readmes which is a good thing (imo).
3. There are some instructions which I would consider common knowledge like testing Rust with cargo test or how to add a dependency in Cargo. Though that might be just me.

I like the docs, but there are several high-level suggestions I have that can be generally described as "documenting at the right level":

1. I know that the plan is to integrate doc comments from the code into this documentation. I think this is a great idea and imo it should replace all the code snippets and descriptions of specific types and functions that are currently present in the docs. Comments in the code are much more easily maintainable and updatable.

I agree

2. Tbh I don't like the technical descriptions of primitives. I think explaining how exactly rounds of Poseidon work with pictures is an overkill. Imo linking a good resource is enough. The same goes for NTT and MSM to less extent as there are fewer details about them in respective readmes which is a good thing (imo).

I did this to make it accessible to everyone. Personally myself I only need the how to compile docs and i would just read the code an examples. But I know the majority of people may not know what MSM is exactly.

3. There are some instructions which I would consider common knowledge like testing Rust with cargo test or how to add a dependency in Cargo. Though that might be just me.

Same, its to make it accessible, I wanted everyone to be able to enjoy the docs. I dont want to start assuming everything that I know is obvious to everyone else. Yes I agree cargo test is very very common knowlage, but what if im a golang developer who wants to check out the rust bindings ? i want to save him the time.