upvote

points

by dummydummy12348 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby pg838 hours ago|
next
[-]
> Or even just write in your native language and then have Claude translate.

That's exactly what I did.

reply
upvoteby FooBarWidget5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> By writing your documentation with Claude, my brain immediately associates the quality of the project with the quality of unreviewed Claude output.

I'm sorry, but I agree with the author: if a certain writing style makes you associate the work with low-quality, then that's your problem. The author shouldn't have to rewrite the readme just to avoid triggering your automatic unfounded associations. If you look at the substance of the work, including the test cases, then this is clearly not easy work that can be vibe coded in a single pass.

It's just like emdash. Everybody digs on how it's a signifier of LLM text, but I've used emdash for years because it's gramatically correct. I shouldn't have to stop using emdash just to avoid kneejerk reactions.

reply
upvoteby duskdozer2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
LLMs often use emdashes in a distinct incorrect way. It's not just the existence of any emdash, although considering you were in a very small minority of older users, it now warrants increased scrutiny, unfortunately for you.
reply
upvoteby nasso_dev3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
if 99 poor effort/quality projects have a readme that reads in a particular style, then you expect the 100th project with a readme in the same style to also be of poor effort/quality

statistically, it only makes sense for your expectations to immediately be low when you encounter this writing style because there are just so much slop out there

the author is free to keep that writing style but they should be aware that this will—at least on the surface level—make their project look exactly like the metric ton of slop we see posted everyday everywhere

reply