Yeh, indeed, the README was mostly generated, though the introduction is largely human-written :-) Is some specific description missing? I can provide more practical code examples directly in README. The benchmarks are mostly on runtime performance I assume?
No, the problems are a) you get the same exact AI "voice" that is tedious to keep reading, b) it's verbose and focuses on the wrong things (the whole Module Architecture section doesn't belong there), and c) it's a sign that it's slop and not well tested.
> The benchmarks are mostly on runtime performance I assume?
You tell me! You (or Claude) make performance claims - "aiming to get C-level performance without leaving Python". Does it actually get anywhere near that claim?
Fully fair, I'd need to spend more time on the text. The nimic was mostly tested on the raytracer project dima-quant/ndsl_raytracer, and the performance was indeed quite near the C-level.
Yeh, indeed, the README was mostly generated, though the introduction is largely human-written :-) Is some specific description missing? I can provide more practical code examples directly in README. The benchmarks are mostly on runtime performance I assume?
> Is some specific description missing?
No, the problems are a) you get the same exact AI "voice" that is tedious to keep reading, b) it's verbose and focuses on the wrong things (the whole Module Architecture section doesn't belong there), and c) it's a sign that it's slop and not well tested.
> The benchmarks are mostly on runtime performance I assume?
You tell me! You (or Claude) make performance claims - "aiming to get C-level performance without leaving Python". Does it actually get anywhere near that claim?
Fully fair, I'd need to spend more time on the text. The nimic was mostly tested on the raytracer project dima-quant/ndsl_raytracer, and the performance was indeed quite near the C-level.