It seems that your questions are difficult to answer. Perhaps you can be more specific about what type of commands or syntax you would like a better reference for. Maplesoft states that there are more than 2000 commands. I don't think they all need to be referenced in the way you want, and I doubt (with all that legacy) this is technically possible in a consistent way as we know it from programming languages developed from scratch.

Since I use Maple, I don't need programming languages for my purposes. Many high-level commands eliminate the need for programming. From this point of view, I have never thought of Maple as a programming language, but rather as a mathematical environment.

But I agree that without this forum I would never have learned some command details (partly because I couldn't find the relevant help pages, partly because of missing references). And if there was a badge for "looking for documentation", I would have erned it by now.

Pointing out missing information, inconsistencies, or confusing syntax to Maplesoft will help Maplesoft better understand where and why users are getting stuck.
 

@acer 

I will do that.

This is probably the best way to safely use gama as a name for the third Euler angle.

Thank you again!

@Kitonum Thank you for quick clarification!

@Carl Love 

This is exactly what I was looking for.

I did not know that such programatic things are possible with plot options. Is that documented?

Its a big help. Thank you very much!

 I thought I could do the labeling myself, which turned out to be more difficult than expected.

@OD 

Print layout mode was introduced in Maple 2022.

@Christian Wolinski 
Works excellent.

Thank you!

I have seen (and reported to Maple Support) a similar reduction in font size with Maple 2022.
I have attributed this to the 4k Monitors I am using. (This is an unconfirmed assumption.)

What type of Monitor do you use? Can you try other displays?

Do you see the reduction in fond size also in the newly introduced print layout mode?

@Joe Riel 

That works for GetMultibody()

FYI: Get Parameters also does not list "a"

A:-GetParameters()

for

Thank you for the workaround.

@Carl Love 

This is much clearer now. Maples initially known functions are actually procedures. I had overlooked that.

Thank you very much for this detailed explanation!!!

@Carl Love 

A lot to digest for a "yellow belt". Can you give me hint what  ''arctan''(algebraic) does?

Why the double right single quotes?

Works well.

Thank you!!!

@acer 

Always valid would be great, but I don't think that is possible. For now, I'd be happy with something I can check before I use it further.

Yes, this question is related to my earlier question. The difference is that this time I decided to use a step-by-step approach instead of solving sets of equations (as you showed with the "explicit" option, which I couldn't get to work this time). 

For some reason the solution switches between arctan and -arctan output after changes and/or re-execution of the document. That’s how I deal with it at the moment…

I could have asked for a solution that converts an arctan expression with a quotient as an argument. But I have the feeling that solve has more valuable information.

@one man 

For completeness, if someone wants to follow up on our discussion:
If I replace the central link with a telescope I get this compression.

Running your program I get (in Maple 2022):

Error, (in Plot:-AnalyzeData:-StandardizeData) points cannot be converted to floating-point values

@one man 

Your set of parameters only works in MapleSim if I add a prismatic joint to the link in the middle (i.e. allowing compression and extension of L5). The observable compression is (encircled in red) is substantial.

The solution that works in MapleSim with links of equal length does not accept the slightest deviation from 2/sqrt(3). The error message "DSN/RunSimulation: internal error: unable to find matching" is the same that I get with your parameter set. It indicates that a consistent set of equations for the numerical integration can't be established.

It is unsatisfactory that we cannot reach a better agreement. It seems that an expert in kinematics is needed to sort this out.

@one man 

If so, I don't get it to work. It only works in MapleSim if all links are of length 2/sqrt(3) at 2 units distance of the vertical shafts