[nemothekid]

>What's the problem if a site is vibecoded?

Typically if a site is well designed, that used to be a signal that a lot of resources had been invested into the project. Now that signal is rather noisy.

Here, is particularly bad, as the main page is just complete slop bullet points. What does 'end-to-end column compression' mean? or 'uniform bytes at every layer'?

It's difficult to understand at a glance now, if this project is going to be abandonware in a week or if someone actually spending time on this. If the creator can't be bothered to read it, why should I?

Personally, I'm also very weary of Claude design-isms. Once you learn them, you see them everywhere.

[jloveless]

fair point. I am not a front end designer and I did want something less spartan than proverbial q.txt [1] . To be honest - many folks in the community have had access for some time , and a website was just put up this week as a 'larger community access'.

That said the mail group has more details and the blog posts are effectively internal posts turned into shorter (less code) versions. The binary itself is years of effort - with small improvements over many years and shaving a few kb each time ... 'built the old way' like amish furniture :)

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160306154854/http://kx.com/q/d...