Most open source projects are abandoned because the author never finds enough time to work on it or can't muster the focus and attention needed.
It is not true that there is "lack" of human investment in the creation of this. If anything, I spent the last two weeks glued to the screen most of the time, to a degree I have never experienced before, building out all the different areas that lead to this release.
I will not mention the monetary investment because it's not the type that matters here.
Attention, which is arguably the most scarce form of investment, was invested in ample amounts.
Does "immediate mode" mean the UI refreshes at a constant 60fps rate like a video game, redrawing everything all the time?
No.
It means that you build the UI by describing what it should look like now, based on the data / state you own, without referencing any existing "widget" object or trying to manipulate it.
Scale is not about the number of buttons, but the structure of the data.
You have a list of objects, within each objects you have several fields, some of them lists, some of them maps. within some of those sub-items you have other lists and maps, nested arbitrarily.
This would be hell to manage for a retained mode UI. You have to mirror the application data into a widget tree and keep all the elements in sync, all the way down to the arbitrary depths of it.
You'd be writing thousands of lines of code that do nothing but keep your data in sync with widget states. You'd have many one off bugs where one sub field fails to sync in some scenarios. Your only options is to be more defensive: more events, more full-resync. As a result, the codebase is complicated and the application feels slow/heavy, because updating widget states is costly.
In immediate mode, none of that matters. You don't have a parallel widget tree.
You have to stop thinking about it as a computer and think about it as a human.
If, in the context of cooperating together, you say "should I go ahead?" and they just say "no" with nothing else, most people would not interpret that as "don't go ahead". They would interpret that as an unusual break in the rhythm of work.
If you wanted them to not do it, you would say something more like "no no, wait, don't do it yet, I want to do this other thing first".
A plain "no" is not one of the expected answers, so when you encounter it, you're more likely to try to read between the lines rather than take it at face value. It might read more like sarcasm.
Now, if you encountered an LLM that did not understand sarcasm, would you see that as a bug or a feature?
I would not understand the last two sentences. Sidle? Tromp? I don't think I've seen these words enough times for them to register in my mind.
"Strode", I would probably understand after a few seconds of squeezing my brain. I mean, I sort of know "stride", but not as an action someone would take. Rather as the number of bytes a row of pixels takes in a pixel buffer. I would have to extrapolate what the original "daily English" equivalent must have been.
twitter: hasen_judi