In article <b48cbdd7-28ea-4184-b77a-b6e2ff3e6b13@gmail.com> you write:
On 1 Feb 2026 23:27, Richard via Boost wrote:
In article < <CAHf7xWteO7nQazqXoXBXD24ytSjNAuyVcaC=gDjWYde7X2bdtw@mail.gmail.com>> you write:
It's also worth asking, was any of this largely coded by something such as an LLM?
...and if any library, not just this one, had such content, what then?
Crappy code written by humans has been around as long as humans have been writing code. So has good code written by humans.
LLM coding agents are with us to stay. Code should be judged on it's intrinsic quality and not whether or not an LLM was used to create it.
My IDE has coding agents built into it and they constantly make suggestions for completing code, writing code, etc. I judge these contributions myself and decide whether or not to accept them. In the end, you can't really tell how much of my code is written as suggested completions or as characters I typed myself.
There is a difference between code completion suggestions and a significant body of code that is generated by an LLM.
There certainly is a difference in the authoring process. If you, as a reviewer or reader, can't tell the difference between the product of that process and what I would've typed by hand, why do you care? -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>