Comment by throw-qqqqq
12 hours ago
Dude, when I move projects to GitHub I also often collapse everything into a single commit.
I do this to avoid having to check e-mail addresses and names in commits - maybe I mistakenly made a commit from my work account etc.
After the “initial” commit making it all public, I start to work “in the open”. I see many others doing it the same way.
That is NOT a reliable indicator of slop!
And the author has admitted at least some assistance here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46452907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46452841
There may have been less pushback if this had been expressed up front. But also, what is it ? Is it to "test the architecture applied to nats" or is it to be a fully fledged NATs replacement (as per the impression given by table at the bottom of the website) - which becomes much harder if AI has significantly re-written the authors original code (and commented it badly).
The website being AI coded I can take or leave.
Fair point. And as what it is, not a nats replacement, certainly dont have the time to maintain that this way, a test/tech demo/fun side project that yielded super interesting results is probably the answer. As usual I'm probably way too enthusiast when I see some nice results like that and the goal here was to talk about that, but it shifted super fast. So yes Claude rewrote lots of parts, and that's what I love about it. Testing an idea happens in way less time than before, and I find that super cool.
Nothing individually is a good indicator of slop in itself, a human could also have written this readme full of Claud-isms and a borked ASCII schema or the code littered with idiosyncratic comments.
It's the convergent set of clues that makes the case.