I'm all for criticism. It is great for everyone, but a library gets open sourced and you're complaining about empty docs? Seriously? Just hold off until it's more mature or open up a PR to add some stuff to the docs.
Then don't link to it if it's broken. You're wasting people's time.
> Just hold off until it's more mature
Sure, but indicate that it's an alpha product for public consumption instead of suggesting that it's ready for production use by other teams, just because Facebook uses it internally. You're wasting people's time.
> but a library gets open sourced and you're complaining about empty docs?
Should we not criticize the NPM ecosystem for half implementations that gets abandoned? It seems the team working on Lexical is derivative of Draft.js, which was open sourced by Facebook, and then abandoned. They don't even have the decency to label it is such. In a way, this seems to be a core re-write as Draft.js faced limits with ImmutableJS. Here, they are still leaning into functional programming concepts which may be an expensive abstraction that they will have to do another core re-write / abandon in the future. Seems like the marketing of these projects are for career self-serving purposes. Again, wasting people's time.
Do you mean something like the banner on the README?
https://github.com/facebook/lexical
>They don't even have the decency to label it is such
Do you mean something like the big banner on the README?
Why not mention it in the landing page or docs then?
From my understanding, Facebook lawyers require you peg such commentary in Github packages that are published. Google does this too but Google's definition of "early development" is usually closer to Beta, and their Beta is effectively GA.
Draft.js website doesn't give the impression that it's abandoned. True, people should inspect the source code of projects they consume, but many don't.