[kstenerud]

> You aren’t having a disagreement with a person. You’re having a disagreement with reality.

How so? Are you going to instruct us all on how a termcaps mismatch bug is an indicator of poor code quality, rather than an unfortunate bug emerging from within the chaos of the many layers of disparate technologies that must somehow be stitched together (along with their idiosyncrasies) in order to make a project like this work?

[sjagauanbdvva]

Because you won’t listen to a word anyone says lol.

You had a visual bug right at the top of the repos README. Then insisted you hadn’t noticed it before.

Whats important is not that specific visual bug, it’s what that bug says about the rest of the code.

How can we believe that this code is high quality if we see a glaring issue 5 seconds into opening the github?

We didn’t seek out your repo and start lobbing critiques at it. YOU POSTED IT as an example of high quality generated code. I’m telling you I am unimpressed

[kstenerud]

> you won’t listen to a word anyone says

Really? So the discussion leading to the theory that there's likely a problem with termcaps disparity between layers didn't happen?

> Whats important is not that specific visual bug, it’s what that bug says about the rest of the code.

Really? So you can tell from a single cosmetic bug which doesn't affect its ability to perform its task, that the rest of the codebase is deficient? That's a pretty damn impressive skill!

Hater's gonna hate, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The otherwise timid pack always circles after they sense a single drop of blood, no matter how small and insignificant.

[eudamoniac]

Dude, you have a glaring visual bug that is immediately obvious, as the first thing shown in the repo, and also would be seen every time you tested the tool, but you didn't notice it at all. That does not bode well for you noticing other aspects of quality in the tool. Maybe that's the only quality issue, but we all very seriously doubt it.