I remember someone once created a GitHub issue requesting I turn the README into some verbose technical thing with full API docs and a bunch of people replied saying they greatly preferred the "pitch + high-level examples" style.
"Blender's user interface, as a library you can use from Python, Rust, JavaScript (React, Svelte), C, C++ and Dear ImGui."
This tells me a huge amount of what I need to know, if I'm interested in this project or not.
We also have a discord server, lmk if you're planning on using BUI!
To the project maintainer: don’t ask people to read a terrible AI generated sales pitch novella that quantifies your AI generated port against every UI framework out there.
Here’s the obvious giveaways:
“ 4. The many ways in” “ Python, four ways”
“ tkinter: all 7,846 public names of tkinter and ttk. Nine real programs behave identically on the standard library and on BUI.”
“ Rust: the web platform, natively”
Ugh it’s excruciating. You’re better off with a readme that shows a few screenshots and installation instructions.
1 - thanks to the poster that mentioned nausea, I've been looking for the word to describe LLM based writing for a while and it's perfect.
"down to earth" and "hobby-project" does a good job. its still not perfect but better than the vanilla output. eg. https://github.com/busssard/OpenRing
like, if people are gonna be turning the crank to generate prose-like text from statistical models and calling it a day, aren't "subagents" a hip new thing nowadays? there do exist models that aren't overcooked to impressively bad long-tail in the pursuit of maximum coding benchmark scores. such other models generate prose-like text that is significantly less miserable to wade through.
if you're a vibecoder who's terminally committed to the bit, for god's sake, at least tell a local gemma to draft your readme or something. an occasional falsehood is less damaging to usability than the experience of reading feeling like trudging through a pool filled with treacle.
This is further evidence of the need for small models doing specific things well.
Where I would say models fit in the process is establishing the general layout of documentation and iteratively refining things out. Interestingly, it’s the same for image generation too. But 9 out of 10 it creates incomplete work that needs refinement.
Go wide, then hone in, refine. There’s no such thing as getting AI to single shot creative tasks. Which is funny because everyone thought writers are on the chopping block initially, but that is unequivocally NOT the case.
Even technical tasks, agents doing it their own way yields garbage in some right. It’s just a question of how long it runs before it goes down a path of no return.
Human in the loop is the only way. And, to be honest, what’s the f*king rush anyway? We all need to slow down. Good ideas with unravel in time. :)
But the worst part is all code snippets are followed by an image which is not related to the code snippet. It's not what you get by typing the code... it's something completely different.
but also the fact that yours is the most upvoted comment tells me there are entire swathes of people for whom that style works, and i am interested to get in people's heads about that, because it might yield some insight re: for what kind of audience these labs are optimising the style of text these models generate. so, if someone is reading this comment, and you broadly agree with the comment i am replying to, please answer these questions:
1. is english your native language?
2. what about the prose do you find appealing?
3. do you not find the structure (colossal wall of text, infodumping about largely irrelevant details) annoying/noisy?
4. does the word-to-word style and clichéd phrasing not immediately set off your llm alarm bells?
i guess people can answer if they disagree too, if they really want to
1. English is my native language.
2. The organization was to the point (eg it described what this is and who would use it up front). I can't say I found the prose "appealing" -- about the best I can say is that it was so obviously LLM writing that it implicitly told me that this is most likely a large mostly unattended porting project, which helped me set my expectations accordingly. Note that this is also why I stopped after getting a good feel for what it all is; the project would be interesting if I had a need to make something with that exact style of UI, but otherwise there wasn't going to be some shiny new idea or brilliant perspective that I could apply more widely.
3. Partly. It was a wall, but not that impenetrable a wall. There's plenty worse, and it was broken up enough for me to get through. Things were signposted well enough for me to skip a lot of what wasn't relevant to me.
4. Oh, absolutely. See above.
I'm finally growing the ability to extract value even after detecting that text is in the en-SLOP locale. Originally I couldn't detect it, then I could and couldn't tolerate it, now I'm starting to be able to treat it like broken English or caveman speak. I have to work to extract value, albeit a different type of work than those two.
It's mostly about suppressing my reactivity to the choppy phrasing and braggadocio (which are both the results of reinforcement training to elicit exactly the sort of reaction that I'm suppressing).
Then, the README very quickly continues with "What BUI is" and "Why BUI exists". These are all the exact things I want to know, ASAP, when I encounter a new project. The language reads perfectly fine to me.
Here is another example of a nice README: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv
Do you know what I don't want to know first? What the startup time is, what language you wrote it in (because you think it makes your project cooler), some other random internal details about the performance of the thing, when I don't even yet know what the thing is.
You mean something like:
> turns it into a standalone UI library with a small C core
...?
Or this:
> At the heart of BUI is the kit: a small runtime written in C
......??
I personally have no issue of this, but the more I read your comments the more confused I got.