Could this work with the actual game files (e.g. purchased from Itch.io instead of Steam) ?
Dwarf Fortress in the Browser
21–29 of 29 posts
Re: Dwarf Fortress in the Browser
#22Honest question. Do people read these massive vibe-coded README.md files, or are they just artifacts? The minute I see them, I tune out and move on. These types of docs come across to me as so over-specified and memorialized that I just find it not worth the effort to read. Of course for legacy projects this type of documentation would have been invaluable. What's changed, I wonder?
If we're fair, this is one of the better examples. It looked reasonably useful until it got to the 'CI / GitHub Actions' section. Many readmes take a very long time to describe anything useful, like how to get started or even what exactly the software is.
Re: Dwarf Fortress in the Browser
#23Sooo it’s just streaming a game to your browser. What does this have to do with Dwarf Fortress? There’s tons of generic solutions like this that would work the same way for DF as well. It’s giving AI slop.
This is the sort of trademark violation where I can get behind proper enforcement. It's using the name of an unrelated project for advertisement (attention).
Re: Dwarf Fortress in the Browser
#24Honest question. Do people read these massive vibe-coded README.md files, or are they just artifacts? The minute I see them, I tune out and move on. These types of docs come across to me as so over-specified and memorialized that I just find it not worth the effort to read. Of course for legacy projects this type of documentation would have been invaluable. What's changed, I wonder?
It's 170 lines.
that's not "massive".
Re: Dwarf Fortress in the Browser
#25Why? You keep posting this. What's it for? Who wants this? What does it accomplish? It's a vibe-coded remote console renderer. I don't get why you're posting it.
It's not only slop, it's low-effort slop. How does you post a link including "in the Browser", but actually running it requires some vague pointers about spinning up docker on a remote x86 linux machine?
Re: Dwarf Fortress in the Browser
#26Honest question. Do people read these massive vibe-coded README.md files, or are they just artifacts? The minute I see them, I tune out and move on. These types of docs come across to me as so over-specified and memorialized that I just find it not worth the effort to read. Of course for legacy projects this type of documentation would have been invaluable. What's changed, I wonder?
Are we just saying this now for everything? The readme seems fine and is not long. The entire file is scannable in 1 minute.
Re: Dwarf Fortress in the Browser
#27Honest question. Do people read these massive vibe-coded README.md files, or are they just artifacts? The minute I see them, I tune out and move on. These types of docs come across to me as so over-specified and memorialized that I just find it not worth the effort to read. Of course for legacy projects this type of documentation would have been invaluable. What's changed, I wonder?
If we're fair, this is one of the better examples. It looked reasonably useful until it got to the 'CI / GitHub Actions' section. Many readmes take a very long time to describe anything useful, like how to get started or even what exactly the software is .
Yeah I was expecting some giant text dump based on the complaints in the comments here, yet all I see is a pretty normal README? It's not even that large.
If we are splitting hairs some sections could have been left out or broken up into a dedicated doc, but this is still vastly better than a README that explains too little. At minimum I expect a README to give me guidance on what this is and how to get started with it and having stuff like a file layout helps with exactly that.
Re: Dwarf Fortress in the Browser
#28Honest question. Do people read these massive vibe-coded README.md files, or are they just artifacts? The minute I see them, I tune out and move on. These types of docs come across to me as so over-specified and memorialized that I just find it not worth the effort to read. Of course for legacy projects this type of documentation would have been invaluable. What's changed, I wonder?
We're in an era where the documentation is written to be read by LLM's, and I fully expect the README files to follow suit.
Nonsense. Apologies, but please consider the infinitely magnificent world out there... and not your own echo-chambered desaturated imagination.
I've been a travelling developer at military for security services for more than two decades now, and there's not a single soul out there I know in person who would expect or claim that any documentation is not for people but machines exclusively or initially even.
A documentation, whether formatted/standardized/conventional or not, is for a human, and always will be, because this is what you leave in the history of your own work of life.
> You can add a README file to your repository to tell other __people__ why your project is useful, what they can do with your project, and how they can use it.
>
> Source: https://github.com/github/docs/blob/9af628699ba0d381fb04929a6384c70d63cef8b9/content/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-readmes.mdRe: Dwarf Fortress in the Browser
#29Honest question. Do people read these massive vibe-coded README.md files, or are they just artifacts? The minute I see them, I tune out and move on. These types of docs come across to me as so over-specified and memorialized that I just find it not worth the effort to read. Of course for legacy projects this type of documentation would have been invaluable. What's changed, I wonder?
Hurray! The author has re-organized the Readme making it more adequate!
- https://github.com/Sessa93/remote-df/commit/15bae297e5cad187...
Let's hope they wrote it manually, or at least re-verified the possibly re-generated "simplified" version...