[rng-concern]

Yes, and so the value of the persons opinions on the repo is low. Far lower than real documentation written by someone who knows more, that would not have made that mistake.

The value proposition here is that these llm docs would be useful, however in this case they were not.

[NewsaHackO]

>Far lower than real documentation written by someone who knows more, that would not have made that mistake.

But his own documentation did said that there was a VSCode extension, with installation instructions, a README, changelog, etc. From what he said, it doesn't even compile or remotely work. It would be extremely aggravating to attempt to build the project with the maintainer's own documentation, spend an hour trying to figure out what's wrong, and then contact the maintainer for him to say, "oh yeah, that documentation not correct, that doesn't even compile even though I said it did 2 months ago lol." It is extremely ironic that he is so gungho about DeepWiki getting this wrong.

[ninininino]

Yes, this is my point. It seems like the creator was a little bit lazy to create such a full fledged readme.md with so much polish but -entirely neglect to mention the whole thing is broken and unfinished-.

That seems about as annoying as a random wiki mis-explaining your system.

That being said, I am still biased towards empathizing with the library author since contributing to open source should be seen as being a great service already in and of itself, and I'd default to avoiding casting blame at an author for not doing things "perfectly" or whatever when they are already doing volunteer work/sharing code they could just keep private.