1. English is my native language.

2. The organization was to the point (eg it described what this is and who would use it up front). I can't say I found the prose "appealing" -- about the best I can say is that it was so obviously LLM writing that it implicitly told me that this is most likely a large mostly unattended porting project, which helped me set my expectations accordingly. Note that this is also why I stopped after getting a good feel for what it all is; the project would be interesting if I had a need to make something with that exact style of UI, but otherwise there wasn't going to be some shiny new idea or brilliant perspective that I could apply more widely.

3. Partly. It was a wall, but not that impenetrable a wall. There's plenty worse, and it was broken up enough for me to get through. Things were signposted well enough for me to skip a lot of what wasn't relevant to me.

4. Oh, absolutely. See above.

I'm finally growing the ability to extract value even after detecting that text is in the en-SLOP locale. Originally I couldn't detect it, then I could and couldn't tolerate it, now I'm starting to be able to treat it like broken English or caveman speak. I have to work to extract value, albeit a different type of work than those two.

It's mostly about suppressing my reactivity to the choppy phrasing and braggadocio (which are both the results of reinforcement training to elicit exactly the sort of reaction that I'm suppressing).

To the project maintainer: don’t ask people to read a terrible AI generated sales pitch novella that quantifies your AI generated port against every UI framework out there.

Here’s the obvious giveaways:

“ 4. The many ways in” “ Python, four ways”

“ tkinter: all 7,846 public names of tkinter and ttk. Nine real programs behave identically on the standard library and on BUI.”

“ Rust: the web platform, natively”

Ugh it’s excruciating. You’re better off with a readme that shows a few screenshots and installation instructions.

Edit: I found reading those examples in the most sanctimonious voice I could imagine seemed very plausible - maybe LLMs sound like they are up their own arse.

"Blender's user interface, as a library you can use from Python, Rust, JavaScript (React, Svelte), C, C++ and Dear ImGui."

This tells me a huge amount of what I need to know, if I'm interested in this project or not.

Compare it to another very recent example posted on hn: https://github.com/rivet-dev/rivet - You need to get some way down the page until it discloses what you might be able to do with the project. https://github.com/rivet-dev/rivet#use-cases

But by that stage, even though it isn't very far down the page, I'm already checked out.

Then, the README very quickly continues with "What BUI is" and "Why BUI exists". These are all the exact things I want to know, ASAP, when I encounter a new project. The language reads perfectly fine to me.

Here is another example of a nice README: https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv

Do you know what I don't want to know first? What the startup time is, what language you wrote it in (because you think it makes your project cooler), some other random internal details about the performance of the thing, when I don't even yet know what the thing is.

If that's an LLM-ism, then it's one that I hope spreads.

Not in an age of AI.

I mean if you want to code all this stuff by hand, I get it. But that's a choice. And since it's a choice that means shoehorning a Blender UI into a "bargain-basement game editor" (and having a "bargain basement game editor) isnt really needed. You absolutely don't need to spend a lot of time arranging UI stuff.

Game tooling is pretty trivial now and it's not user-facing. Again, I fully understand why someone would want to do this themselves still but let's not pretend thats not a choice at this point.

Yeah you can do that. If you have low standards and don't need control of the details.

Now as an adult, I can see why they removed it. It didn't make sense to put resources into it.

I'm really happy about the UPBGE project. It doesn't compare to the capabilities of Godot, but that's okay. It just makes me happy that someone else cared about it enough to pour time into it.

That's an interesting distinction. A distinction without a difference in my opinion, but a distinction nonetheless!

When they tried to jump on newer trends they made them all monochrome, and they don't have distinctive sillouettes so it's just completely inscrutable. That Inkscape screenshot is horrible. I count 129 icons.

And yet they still devote so much space to their bizarre colour palette, which is huge but still manages to omit most of the gamut? It's the kind of design that really only comes from decades of OSS development.

[0]: https://gradia.alexandervanhee.be/ [1]: https://www.pinta-project.com/ [2]: https://krita.org/en/

GPL makes sense for applications like Blender. For a general purpose library, it's a dealbreaker.

But that wouldn't work for a straight derivative of a GPL project.

GPUI and Makepad are the two Rust UI frameworks that seem the most interesting for what I'm looking for in a UI framework (hybrid immediate/retained mode, self-drawn widgets, open source).

Probably it works in other implementations (I did not try); in web it produces <input type="text"> and agent likely gave up trying to simulate such details there.

I don't think we can use LGPL since we were derived from Blender's Source code, which is GPL.

But the premise is silly: if Linux has two native toolkits, how is this a sensible recommendation?? Hint: it isn’t, because GTK/Qt are not the native, but rather simply the most used.

Also, go to Mac, and SwiftUI still doesn’t support all that AppKit used to, leaving an incentive for developers to deviate from the platform’s recommendation.

And back to Windows, WinUI still doesn’t fully replace Win32 or Windows Forms, so same conclusion applies.