upvote

points

by adastra2212 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby knowsuchagency11 hours ago|
next
[-]
The docs are perfectly legible and to the point. I don't see the need to waste the author's time with aesthetics
reply
upvoteby adastra2211 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Legibility is not the concern. The issue is whether the point the docs are making are the actual point the author is concerned with.
reply
upvoteby felixgallo11 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
With respect, what on earth are you talking about? The documentation is clear about what the language does. You can download it and test it out if you like, and verify if yourself if the documentation matches the feature descriptions. What the human collaborator wants is immaterial. You get the code.

The author has written that post about why the language came about. He doesn't owe you that, but he did it anyway. He doesn't owe you anything more. You can use it or not. Advising him to throw away all the documentation and rewrite it again by hand from scratch so that adastra22 can deign to examine it further is ridiculous.

If you have a question about whether or not this further iterations will fit your specific (and so far undescribed) particular use case, the correct avenue for that is to ask the author politely. Or Fable; Fable could probably tell you without having to bother the author. But holy cow, the entitlement.

reply
upvoteby adastra2211 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Are we now in a situation where all code is disposable, throwaway things with no long-lived projects?

We're talking about a programming language. Languages, and their compilers, evolve over time. Where is this one headed?

reply
upvoteby baq3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
with programming languages which just rehash ideas (not saying it's a bad thing mind you! a good mix is better than a sum of its parts) you can nowadays get literally years of work in a week. truly novel stuff like bend2 takes longer (ask Victor), but I expect the next generation of models to compress those timelines, too (if the next generation is allowed to be released, since the security brouhaha going on now is seriously concerning)
reply
upvoteby vikramkr3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
pretty much that's the default assumption yeah. Anything new is probably a throwaway. If there's anything cool in it - rebuild it to your own taste. There will be exceptions that do become long lived projects of course. probably even the same amount there were before. But there's going to be a few orders of magnitude more throwaways so on average any new piece of code is going to be a throwaway
reply
upvoteby felixgallo9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If you think you'll be able to divine that if and only if the documentation is entirely written by a human, then I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you: no language has ever evolved strictly according to the initial plan of their authors. Nor has any author's strongly held belief about the future ever panned out the way they thought. Nor has the documentation ever held the immutable future of the language, even when fully human generated (which essentially zero languages have, even before AI).

The way to find out if a language is suitable for your needs is not to demand, in an entitled way, that the author perform an act for you. It is to (a) ask the author politely; or, failing that, (b) to examine it yourself (or ask Fable to evaluate it, using tokens you paid for).

This particular language, further, is Apache 2.0 licensed. If it's not working for you, fix it. Jesus.

reply
upvoteby jibalt6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Your correspondent keeps moving the goalposts and never presents a coherent argument. I would just leave them be.
reply
upvoteby adastra225 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
How have I been inconsistent?
reply
upvoteby vikramkr3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
What's left to determine? Obviously AI written docs are a deal breaker for you. Seems very straightforward. If docs are ai written, move on. That's an immediate and obvious fundamental incompatibility you have with the project. Why are you still complaining about the docs being ai written getting in the way of making your decision when you've clearly already made it?
reply
upvoteby hexasquid10 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Seems like an AI could be tasked with verifying the docs. Then a human can double check it's work if it finds anything.
reply
upvoteby adastra2210 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Verify against what? What I want verification against lives in the human's head, not the repo.
reply
upvoteby hexasquid9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Oh, I was thinking verify what the doc claims to what the code actually does, I misunderstood you.
reply